Alt-Right: HA-HA-HA-HAGHOOCH

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Alt-Right: HA-HA-HA-HAGHOOCH

«‹›3070 »

Anime Schoolgirl: Nov 28, 2002

also maybe being a rapist is kind of

bad

# ? Feb 12, 2017 01:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 16:27

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

breaklaw posted:

Inciting harassment? Link?

lol you post a bunch of words defending a guy but you can't even bother to do a google search

# ? Feb 12, 2017 01:19

SpaceGoku: Jul 19, 2011

breaklaw posted:

The idea that anyone, a public university administrator or anyone, can just unilaterally declare ideas they don't like to be "hate speech" and "fascism" and then proceed to censor or silence these ideas through violence, or even through bureaucratic means is unamerican and unconstitutional in every way. We don't arbitrarily ignore or invalidate the rights of racists, radicals, rabble-rousers or anyone else. You should go find yourselves a country with a vangaurd party if you want to live like that.

it isn't unconstitutional or unamerican at all

no one owes you or anyone else a platform, not even a public university

the only thing the first amendment guarantees you with regards to your ability to speak is that the government won't forbid you the right to speak on the grounds of content, and even then that has specific limitations and restrictions

also lmao, did you get triggered

# ? Feb 12, 2017 01:21

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

The real problem with the free speech defense is that it doesn't account for the "fighting words" exception. If you engage in speech that's threatening to an individual or a group, and they react with violence then it's in their natural right to do so. There are legal limits for this, obviously. Anonymous rioters will still be prosecuted, and if somebody punched Milo they could still be charged with assault - but rhetorically it doesn't hold up at all. The Far Right thinks of free speech as a shield which liberates themselves from consequence while everyone else has to deal with the implications of their politics. But reality don't work that way.

Yeah two court cases on this:

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Feiner v. New York

quote:

Focusing on the "rise up in arms and fight for their rights" part of Feiner's speech, the Court found that Feiner's First Amendment rights were not violated because his arrest came when the police thought that a riot might occur; the police attempted to suppress Feiner's message not based on its content but on the reaction of the crowd. The Court reaffirmed that a speaker cannot be arrested for the content of his speech and that the police must not be used as an instrument to silence unpopular views but must be used to silence a speaker who is trying to incite a riot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feiner_v._New_York

The issue is, for it to be legal, the incitement must likely lead to an "imminent" breach of peace. As in... right NOW. Not at some indeterminate future date.

This for example, is when the court ruled the other way. A racist Catholic priest provoked a riot outside a stadium and was arrested, but the Court overturned his conviction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminiello_v._City_of_Chicago

BrutalistMcDonalds has issued a correction as of 01:45 on Feb 12, 2017

# ? Feb 12, 2017 01:42

Arcteryx Anarchist: Sep 15, 2007; Fun Shoe

and that's why people should keep an eye out, don't let nazis boil the frog

# ? Feb 12, 2017 01:46

Lastgirl: Sep 7, 1997; Good Morning!
Sunday Morning!

breaklaw posted:

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

you loving suck

# ? Feb 12, 2017 02:45

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
(and can't post for 29 days!)

Wikkheiser posted:

The issue is, for it to be legal, the incitement must likely lead to an "imminent" breach of peace. As in... right NOW. Not at some indeterminate future date.

That's why I'm not making a strictly legalistic argument.

# ? Feb 12, 2017 02:48

Baku: Aug 20, 2005; by Fluffdaddy

SpaceGoku posted:

it isn't unconstitutional or unamerican at all

no one owes you or anyone else a platform, not even a public university

yeah p much this, if you think (for example) that If I want to scream the n-word over 9,000 times consecutively or explain in detail why the earth is actually flat that universities (which also have a responsibility to effectively educate) are obliged to give me a platform, you're a loving idiot

if you see a substantial qualitative difference in those kinds of speech and richard spencer's diatribes about the children of the sun or milo putting individual students on blast and basically going "GET EM", you're a loving nazi

it's really not that complicated but for "some reason" a lot of people have extremely huge trouble with it, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they just don't know what alt right dudes actually say and think they're just regular whitebread conservatives but given the op gives plenty to go on to research them I doubt it

# ? Feb 12, 2017 02:53

passionate dongs: May 23, 2001; Snitchin' is Bitchin'

where did this horribly stupid interpretation of free speech come from? this is like the number one shared belief amongst internet edgelords, its always articulated the same way, but i have no idea where it actually spawned from.

is this like the grade school turds who would act like poo poo and then say "its a free country" but all grown up now?

# ? Feb 12, 2017 03:31

Arcteryx Anarchist: Sep 15, 2007; Fun Shoe

it came from the failures of the American education system, combined with people that are huge squares that need to be The Most Ideologically Correct

like these are the types of people that will take pride in reading some wing nut site because they believe it empowers them with some kind of evenhandedness

# ? Feb 12, 2017 04:32

El Mero Mero: Oct 13, 2001

the black husserl posted:

I'm just gonna keep posting this Sartre quote (from 1944!!) because he called this poo poo perfectly back then and we should all memorize this:

quote:
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.

They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

This a million times over. We're in a dogwhistle politics environment right now, something that everyone knows. The Trump legal defense of the ~~muslim ban~~ immigration restriction EO was really clear evidence of this. The lawyer might as well have acted out the scene described in the quote above.

The entire talking point about liberal (in)tolerance for free speech revolves around the paradox of tolerance, something that was brought up and settled over 50 years ago. A free society that values, tolerates and permits freedom of expression has to be intolerant of speech and activity that undermines that value.

Basically I disagree with you but I'll die for your right to be disagreeable only holds so long as that sentiment is reciprocal.

El Mero Mero has issued a correction as of 04:39 on Feb 12, 2017

# ? Feb 12, 2017 04:32

Baku: Aug 20, 2005; by Fluffdaddy

passionate dongs posted:

where did this horribly stupid interpretation of free speech come from? this is like the number one shared belief amongst internet edgelords, its always articulated the same way, but i have no idea where it actually spawned from.

is this like the grade school turds who would act like poo poo and then say "its a free country" but all grown up now?

stupid people and teenagers who want you to think they're very intelligent and open-minded are sympathetic to any anti-authoritarian sentiment, and we now live in a civilization where the majority of authorities say things like "homosexuals are people who deserve to be treated with human dignity" and "liberal democracy is a better system than autocracy or theocracy"

# ? Feb 12, 2017 09:51

TehRedWheelbarrow: Mar 16, 2011; Fan of Britches

El Mero Mero posted:

Basically I disagree with you but I'll die for your right to be disagreeable only holds so long as that sentiment is reciprocal.

This is really well put.

# ? Feb 12, 2017 13:51

BedBuglet: Jan 13, 2016; Snippet of poetry or some shit

As a woman with a STEM degree, I personally found this Milo article particularly cute. You know, for someone who bitches a lot about Sharia law, he sure seems to be a fan of the parts that deal with women.

Milo Yiannopoulos posted:

Here�s Why There Ought to Be a Cap on Women Studying Science and Maths

Women drop out of science and maths in alarming numbers, not because there are sinister and mysterious patriarchal forces at play, but because they either can�t cut it in highly competitive environments or they simply change their minds about what they want from life.

If you don�t believe me, listen to feminist academic Dr Emily Grossman, who last week appeared to suggest, in support of controversial comments made by Nobel laureate Tim Hunt, that women need special treatment because they�re fragile, delicate wallflowers who cry a lot. Her argument, not mine!

Even women who graduate with good degrees in science subjects often don�t use them: they switch careers in their twenties, abandoning the hard sciences. In some cases, they simply drop out of the workforce altogether. This is a disaster for the men who missed out on places, and it�s a criminal waste of public funds.

That�s why I think there ought to be a cap on the number of women enrolling in the sciences, maths, philosophy, engineering� and perhaps medicine and the law, too. It�s hugely expensive to train a doctor, but women have something like a third of the career of a man in medicine, despite having equal access to Harvard Med. Women make up the majority of medical students.

Competition for places at the best colleges is ferocious, especially in these highly competitive subjects. As Grossman admits, women don�t cope well in competitive environments, so even if they get onto the courses, they often drop out when one day a book like this lands on their desk, or when their grades start slipping.

To be fair, plenty of boys drop out at that point as well. But while attrition is terrible across STEM subjects � 48 per cent of bachelor�s degree students who entered STEM fields between 2003 and 2009 left � for women the figure is even higher. Ladies, apparently, find the aggressively competitive nature of these subjects too �uninviting,� so they drop out. They also, according to a White House report, say the classes are too hard.

Sadly, we�re not going to get to Mars or crack commercial nuclear fusion in a nice touchy-feely environment where no one speaks out of turn and everyone�s, like, really supportive and kind and no one has to spend long nights with scary textbooks hopped up on Adderall, Mountain Dew and Doritos. You see, science is about results.

If, as Dr. Grossman seems to be suggesting, segregated labs would be better for women who grizzle at the first sign of disagreement, there�s no reason not to extend that segregation down to school level as well and simply have a set percentage of places set aside for girls and teach them separately.

But, to do that, we would have to start being honest about the number of women who actually want to grow up to be dorks: it�s small. And it gets even smaller in supposedly more �equal� societies: in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, where women are routinely oppressed and abused, the gender split in science is 50-50 in a lot of courses.

In Norway and Sweden, some of the most progressive, female-friendly places in the world, the number of women studying maths and science collapses to single figures. What this tells us is that, given every opportunity to choose, women stubbornly refuse to study the subjects feminists would like them to.

So by rights that cap on female places should � if we�re feeling optimistic � be set at between 5 and 10 per cent. Any higher and we�re giving in to ideology and social engineering, rather than looking at what the numbers say and respecting women�s choices.

I�m not sure how I feel about segregation, personally. But I�m intrigued by the idea of shuffling girls off separately and seeing what the sisterly, communitarian approach to learning Grossman describes would produce, versus a lab of obsessive, relentlessly hyper-competitive boys.

That idyll of matriarchal supportiveness, friendly sharing and leaderboard-free love doesn�t, incidentally, concord with my experience of what women are like when they work together. There�s more back-stabbing than basket-weaving, as any bloke who has been caught in the crossfire can tell you. But I digress.

Female attrition in STEM subjects has nothing to do with the �messages we send young girls� about what they could be when they grow up, nor about trumped-up supposed sexism in the workplace. �Girls in tech� advocates are wholly misguided if they think that bullying young girls into science courses will have any effect on the overall number of women in the workplace.

Let�s remember that, for those few women who do choose to go into science, there�s no such thing as a glass ceiling any more. It�s more like a crystal escalator: women are far more likely, all else being equal, than men to get jobs in STEM subjects these days.

Study after study confirms that men with the same qualifications are routinely passed over in favour of girls, at a ratio of 2:1, because employers of every stripe are so desperate to trumpet their diversity credentials. That doesn�t seem fair, does it?

It�s worth remembering too that feminists deliberately define science as narrowly as possible, excluding subjects like clinical psychology, which are almost entirely female. They do this to make it look like the sciences are disproportionately male, when the truth is that only some science subjects are. Other subjects, like veterinary medicine, barely attract any men at all.

Feminists seem to think that if you�re not in particle physics or building a photo-sharing app in San Francisco, you don�t count. Bit sexist? You be the judge.

If you�re wondering how all this might have happened, by the way, the answer is simple. Journalists, activists and politicians take their cues on this stuff from psychology, sociology and anthropology research. It just so happens that women vastly outnumber men in all three disciplines. In other words, the people studying our culture and recommending changes are all women.

We tend not to hear calls for equality in the social sciences to #changetheratio, even though the conclusions these PhD students and professors draw can be very influential. They�re responsible, for example, for persistent myths like the gender pay gap and moral panics about campus rape culture.

This extends to other sorts of jobs. We only complain when women, gays or ethnic minorities are outnumbered, even when there is no sound basis for an arbitrarily even gender divide. It is a source of constant vexation to me personally that there aren�t more heterosexual males on fragrance counters, for instance.

The fact is, there is simply no evidence than �lingering stereotypes� cause women to drop out of hard subjects, or not apply for them in the first place. Especially now every young girl is bored to death in school by finger-wagging from geeks flown in to make science appear sexy.

And there�s good reason to suppose that, by instituting a gender-based cap, we can make competition for female places on STEM courses more fierce, and thus arrest the tide of attrition and the waste of public money. Something to think about, anyway.

# ? Feb 13, 2017 00:58

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
(and can't post for 29 days!)

https://twitter.com/TomiLahren/status/830625754882805760

https://twitter.com/pisspiggranddad/status/830867625781637121

Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 02:24 on Feb 13, 2017

# ? Feb 13, 2017 02:15

BornAPoorBlkChild: Sep 24, 2012

BedBuglet posted:

As a woman with a STEM degree, I personally found this Milo article particularly cute. You know, for someone who bitches a lot about Sharia law, he sure seems to be a fan of the parts that deal with women.

in the Age of Trump, I truly fear women and minorities getting lesser and lesser opportunities in STEM positions

# ? Feb 13, 2017 02:23

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
(and can't post for 29 days!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcXC9o9mRdg

# ? Feb 13, 2017 03:51

theflyingexecutive: Apr 22, 2007

passionate dongs posted:

where did this horribly stupid interpretation of free speech come from? this is like the number one shared belief amongst internet edgelords, its always articulated the same way, but i have no idea where it actually spawned from.

is this like the grade school turds who would act like poo poo and then say "its a free country" but all grown up now?

It's concern trolling because the left falls all over themselves to defend principles and technicalities over purpose and intention. like when Colbert attacked the name of the Washington redskins and faced backlash over the construction of his joke and not its meaning

# ? Feb 13, 2017 04:04

Telephones: Apr 28, 2013

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

https://twitter.com/TomiLahren/status/830625754882805760

https://twitter.com/pisspiggranddad/status/830867625781637121

Lenin lover 69

# ? Feb 13, 2017 04:04

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

https://twitter.com/pisspiggranddad/status/830867625781637121

https://twitter.com/RIPMarkusJ/status/830872878694408194

# ? Feb 13, 2017 06:38

Montasque: Jul 18, 2003; Living in a hateful world sending me straight to Heaven

Punk is dead.

# ? Feb 13, 2017 07:19

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Montasque posted:

Punk is dead.

Thank God.

# ? Feb 13, 2017 07:21

Montasque: Jul 18, 2003; Living in a hateful world sending me straight to Heaven

Tokamak posted:

https://twitter.com/RIPMarkusJ/status/830872878694408194

Who are these people? None of them look like they lift.

# ? Feb 13, 2017 07:27

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Montasque posted:

Who are these people? None of them look like they lift.

Those are the chapo boys photoshopped onto Milo and Gavin and the other guy. Felix definitely lifts I believe

# ? Feb 13, 2017 09:08

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

lol of course the china thread hates sjws

# ? Feb 13, 2017 09:10

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
(and can't post for 29 days!)

Montasque posted:

Who are these people? None of them look like they lift.

They also sleep in beds without headboards.

# ? Feb 13, 2017 10:07

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

Montasque posted:

Punk is dead.

Inshallah

# ? Feb 13, 2017 10:09

TehRedWheelbarrow: Mar 16, 2011; Fan of Britches

BedBuglet posted:

As a woman with a STEM degree, I personally found this Milo article particularly cute. You know, for someone who bitches a lot about Sharia law, he sure seems to be a fan of the parts that deal with women.

lol, milo obviously hasnt been to any higher level math classes or he wouldnt be raging about just women in them.

# ? Feb 13, 2017 13:21

Baku: Aug 20, 2005; by Fluffdaddy

Bud K ninja sword posted:

lol, milo obviously hasnt been to any higher level math classes or he wouldnt be raging about just women in them.

Hell, it's almost like he's a goofy nu media celebrity and not a daring rogue intellectual

# ? Feb 13, 2017 14:12

TehRedWheelbarrow: Mar 16, 2011; Fan of Britches

wizard on a water slide posted:

Hell, it's almost like he's a goofy nu media celebrity and not a daring rogue intellectual

wait are you making the suggestion that he might not have any clue what he is taking about?

Thats.. preposterous!

# ? Feb 13, 2017 14:18

Baku: Aug 20, 2005; by Fluffdaddy

Bud K ninja sword posted:

wait are you making the suggestion that he might not have any clue what he is taking about?

Thats.. preposterous!

Look dude it's very important the students of universities - institutions which exist principally to provide advanced educations and social networking for young/future professionals - be exposed to a range of voices, both those who have expertise and know what they're talking about, and those who don't.

# ? Feb 13, 2017 14:40

TehRedWheelbarrow: Mar 16, 2011; Fan of Britches

wizard on a water slide posted:

Look dude it's very important the students of universities - institutions which exist principally to provide advanced educations and social networking for young/future professionals - be exposed to a range of voices, both those who have expertise and know what they're talking about, and those who don't.

my poor brain, I thought places of learning cultivated opportunities for growth and education while providing a valuable social education environment :argh:

I have been fooled!

# ? Feb 13, 2017 14:43

mysterious frankie: Jan 11, 2009; This displeases Dev- ..van. Shut up.

Bud K ninja sword posted:

my poor brain, I thought places of learning cultivated opportunities for growth and education while providing a valuable social education environment I have been fooled!

Thank you for graduating with us! This Pepsi Brand Brown University education was also brought to you in part by Uber and a monolithic pharmaceutical concern that wishes to remain anonymous. Be well and have a great adulthood! *conveyor belt moves graduates into smelting vat. some graduates ding off the side and fall into a pile marked for immediate disposal into social media, silicon valley*

# ? Feb 13, 2017 18:11

TehRedWheelbarrow: Mar 16, 2011; Fan of Britches

IM GONNA BE A SOCIAL MEDIA MANAGER!

# ? Feb 13, 2017 18:18

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

https://twitter.com/pisspiggranddad/status/830867625781637121

pretty soon milo will only be able to perform behind a chicken wire fence for his safety too

# ? Feb 13, 2017 18:18

BornAPoorBlkChild: Sep 24, 2012

No amount of "decent" Education or gainful employment will ever unfuck these people's brains out of [SECRET JEW CONSPIRACY TO EXTERMINATE PROUD INDUSTRIOUS WHITE MAN]

BornAPoorBlkChild has issued a correction as of 20:13 on Feb 13, 2017

# ? Feb 13, 2017 20:11