|
RealTalk posted:I agree completely that Palestinian activists and people who criticize Israel continue to have their right to free speech abridged. You have not established that anyone on the right is having their right to free speech abridged at all, let alone with impunity.
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I will refrain from my behavior in the CSPAM thread dedicated to him to merely say that from the perspective of a professional academic, Peterson does not strike me as a serious thinker. I’m curious what a professional academic such as yourself thinks of his research since you prob have access to most of it- https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en Are there a lot of dummies who still get cited a bunch? Is there a trick to it?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
RealTalk/JRodefeld, welcome back? I made a bot in your honor when you were away. It's a markov bot whose corpus is comprised of your writings on the forums - https://twitter.com/JRodimus_Prime https://twitter.com/JRodimus_Prime/status/876114561421725698 https://twitter.com/JRodimus_Prime/status/844176686841249792 I hope you enjoy. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
Trash Trick posted:Lol whoa!! That’s some messed up stuff. I’d just seen that link thrown around wrt people discussing neomarxist Frankfurt inspired profs and wanted to see if that’s what the person here was referring to. The Frankfurt School means Jews, especially any time people talk about it as a sinister influence on culture or academia. Some of them were big with the drop-out culture of the late 60s, but ever since that collapsed they've been a small historical footnote in leftist thought and a huge bold text section in barely-disguised-antisemitism thought.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
Trash Trick posted:I’m curious what a professional academic such as yourself thinks of his research since you prob have access to most of it- https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en The thing about getting cited is that it doesn't necessarily validate the whole work so much as the bit being referenced. In my own work I've cited any number of reprehensible and/or unreliable people either because in this one specific instance they were the best available source on what specifically I was talking about (ie: if you want to cite how Nazi ideology permeated the ostensibly apolitical* Wehrmacht, Halder's war diary is a good place to look), or because I wanted to point out where someone else had gone badly astray and gotten something wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
Is Jordan Peterson the guy who thinks the government should not only enforce monogamy but in order to end school shootings it should assign women and girls to gently caress incels in some kind of national-scale sex slavery system. What exactly is Libertarian about that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Crumpet Strumpet posted:His views include, but are not limited to, "women are less competent than men in any given field," "mass shootings are caused by men not getting enough sex," and following that, "society would be safer, happier, and healthier if only the government would make sure that men get to gently caress as much as they want." These are not things invented to destroy his reputation, cherrypicked and taken out of context, or misinterpretations of his words. He has stated these opinions nearly verbatim. Actually, I think you just took those statements out of context and misinterpreted them. One at a time. "Women are less competent than men in any given field". Please link to the source where Peterson allegedly said this. What I've heard Peterson say is that the people at the very top of many (not all) fields happen to be men because there happen to be more male geniuses than female, and this is backed up my the scientific literature. He's not talking about the average worker. And I highly doubt he'd ever say that women, on average, are less competent than men "in any given field". Prove it or I'll assume you're a liar. What he has ALSO said is that there are far more men who are in prison, who are homeless and are basically screw-ups and misfits. "Mass shootings are caused by men not getting enough sex". This is incomplete and taken out of context at best. There are many causes for mass shootings and I am quite sure Peterson would never narrow it down to one factor. But, yes, it's quite clear that men who are sexually repressed are more violent. "Society would be safer, happier, and healthier if only the government would make sure that men get to gently caress as much as they want." This is flat out untrue. The quote came from the New York Times article called "Custodian of the Patriarchy" and was clearly a hit piece so why we would take statement in that article as accurate without more information is unclear. When Peterson said monogamy should be "enforced", he meant as a social rule and value. As a custom. As something that is socially encouraged. Not a rule backed up and enforced by the government.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
I guess realtalk got his wish and we're gonna all have a big discussion where we try to convince him that Lobster daddy did in fact say the things he said.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Out of curiosity, what's a smart person's idea of what a smart person looks like? Give me an example. Peterson's academic work entirely consists of smoke and mirrors. It's a loving parody of the works of any of those thinkers you named, written in crayon by a Kermit the Frog sounding imbecile. His ideas are only dangerous in that he's part of the 'lonely white guy to incel murderer' corridor. He feeds into the idea that because white guys have ruled society for time immemorial that they're somehow entitled to continue doing so regardless of merit (and indeed that all evidence aside somehow things would be better if lovely white guys had even more power than they already do).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is Jordan Peterson the guy who thinks the government should not only enforce monogamy but in order to end school shootings it should assign women and girls to gently caress incels in some kind of national-scale sex slavery system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hOBZcwGn6Q Peterson is mainly libertarian in that he frequently highlights the inherent tyranny of government and the importance of vigilance against such but not much else besides. Trash Trick fucked around with this message at 04:49 on May 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I agree completely that Palestinian activists and people who criticize Israel continue to have their right to free speech abridged. It would be an apt comparison, if those conservatives and libertarians weren't also saying racist things. But they nearly always are when they get accused of being racist, and then they're shocked when their casually racist comment was interpreted as racist quote:We don't have to agree that the degree to which someone's right to speech is suppressed is exactly equal to that of another group to recognize that all these groups should be allowed to speak. The poster to whom you're responding never suggested that conservatives or libertarians should have their free speech rights abridged. Protest is a form of speech you nitwit. You're free to say whatever you want, and other people are free to say whatever they want in response. Conservatives sometimes protest liberal events. Liberals sometimes protest conservative events. It's all free speech, but the libertarians and conservatives get their fee-fees hurt extra hard over it because they are even bigger babies than the liberals that they try to mock. Furthermore, a bunch of students protesting a seminar is not comparable to neo-nazis beating up and murdering minorities, I'm sorry but you have to recognize this.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It's hard to pin down exactly what his positions are, mainly because he a lot of what he says comes packaged in generalities and murky analogies, in what seems an intentional effort to impress those for whom "complicated = smart," and confound his critics. His positions are that everyone should be like idealized 50s/60s whitebread families and this will solve all problems. It's what it all boils down to in the end, despite how much random poo poo he throws in about misunderstood articles about animals and his Nickelodeon hot takes.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Prove it or I'll assume you're a liar. Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh poo poo son!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
quote:You know if you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect. quote:I’m defenseless against ... female insanity because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I agree completely that Palestinian activists and people who criticize Israel continue to have their right to free speech abridged. Yeeaaaaaaah look at those news sources. How many of them are right wing shills? But I mean hey people keep handing you shovels. Might as well keep digging! The reason the free speech crisis is "invisible" is because it doesn't loving exist. You know why right wing voices are sometimes being silenced? Because they're literally advocating for genocide. You can't have 100% totally free speech. That is literally impossible. One of the snags here is that the right is screaming about being silenced when people are cancelling speakers who are literally proud about being horrible racists or misogynists. Even if they're allowed to speak students protest the hell out of their speeches because they have every right to do so. You know, free speech and all. The right is also demanding special treatment. Whenever somebody says "no, right wing person, you are wrong. Your facts are wrong, your opinions are stupid, and your policy ideas are terrible" the right screams that it's right wing voices being silenced. At this point they lose their drat minds whenever somebody points out that they live in an entirely separate reality from the rest of us. Bullshit like this is literally proof of that. People on campus outing a right wing speaker as a racist and saying "this person is a racist don't listen to them" is perfectly acceptable because, you know, free speech. Current right wing thought in America very frequently involves hate speech. It isn't even thinly veiled anymore. Right wing policy endeavors literally include "gently caress women, gently caress minorities, gently caress the poor. If you aren't a wealthy white Christian guy then you suck go away." Of loving course people are resisting that. It also isn't silencing conservative or libertarian voices "with impunity." Go organize a libertarian rally if you care so much. Get the proper permits, reserve time in the park if you have to, and you'll find out how much it's being silenced. You know what'll happen? You'll get to have your rally so long as you follow a few simple rules. The snag is that as soon as you advocate "hey let's go defend white people by kicking some not white rear end" you've crossed a line. Guess how often alt right poo poo heads are screaming that these days? Every time a right wing poo poo nugget tells a lie and that lie gets exposed as what it is, a dirty god damned lie, and the right starts screeching about how their opinions aren't respected. This is the movement that produced the phrase "alternative facts." Let that sink in. Think about that one for a while. "Alternative facts." ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 05:07 on May 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
RealTalk, do you have a reason for finishing sentences that are clearly phrased as statements with question marks? He babbles a lot between his question-statements in an attempt to look like he's saying something but he brought up some random conservative idiot to talk about for no reason other than pot-stirring as far as I can tell. He registered days ago and responds exclusively to things that allow him to ask further questions. Basically, are you guys really going to bite on this weak troll?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
I'd honestly be surprised if this guy is Jrodefeld tbh. His one probate is kiiiiinda similar, but his posting itt lacks the hallmark trait of Jrodefeld writing. The staggered paragraphs are a dead giveaway for me. That said, welcome RealTalk! I'm not sure why you think Jorden Peterson chat belongs here, other than the fact that the venn diagram for libertarian shitheads and MRA, Antifeminist, incel loving pieces of poo poo is basically a circle, but welcome all the same. quote:I agree completely that Palestinian activists and people who criticize Israel continue to have their right to free speech abridged. Nope. See, the important distinction is that conservatives and libertarians almost universally are racists or bigots. I know you don't want to believe that, and I get it, no one wants to be told that 'their side' is racist, but it is true. Libertarians, in particular, have a history of their most significant intellectual and political figures being outright racist, such as the fun 'Slavery wasn't so bad, apart from the forcible association they were singing songs and picking cotton' of someone like Walter Block, to, well, pick a person from the modern libertarian party. Arguably the most famous modern libertarian, Ron Paul (2012!) wrote a series of racist as poo poo newsletters and believes the civil rights act is a mistake. Now you yourself might not be racist, but when the people you identify with politically are, that puts you in a difficult spot. I understand that, but pretending that right in general or libertarians in specific don't have a decades long history of racial animus is counterproductive to a discussion of reality. quote:We don't have to agree that the degree to which someone's right to speech is suppressed is exactly equal to that of another group to recognize that all these groups should be allowed to speak. Do you have examples of their 'right to speech' being repressed? I mean governmentally, mind you. If you are being a piece of poo poo racist in public I'd argue that it is a civic duty for others to 'supress' your speech by publicly shaming you. This is the entire idea behind libertarians famed 'marketplace of ideals', and even though I think that is dumb, the general concept, that bad ideas should be mocked, should hardly be controversial. quote:The problem that I object to is the physical shutting down of planned events by leftist protesters. Short of outright violence I support any and all attempts by left wing protesters to shut down what amount to hate speech rallies by conservatives. RealTalk posted:"Women are less competent than men in any given field". Okay, are you under the impression that Peterson isn't a huge misogynist? Because... uh.. HA! Pro-tip, when a guy is out there saying that women were never oppressed in society, or that "there is something that isn't quite right" about women who aren't trying to have babies by thirty, or that they will enslave you to the state or that they don't critizize islam because they just want that sweet male dominance because they are insane... I've lost the train of thought. Right. There aren't more 'male geniuses' than female. That isn't backed up by literature. It is backed up by nonsense  pushed by misogynistic pieces of poo poo like Peterson who long for the day when they could just tell women what to do with a firm open palmed slap on the behind.Or as he says it: “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,” Men are just better. Shut up whores. quote:What he has ALSO said is that there are far more men who are in prison, who are homeless and are basically screw-ups and misfits. This is a standard MRA tactic. Yes, there are things that suck for men. We also have a significantly higher suicide rate, and make-up the majority of the armed forces, neither of which is fair. That does not necessitate you believing in this crazy man's unsupported arguments about how we need to go back to the 'good old days' before women were able to choose for themselves. quote:"Mass shootings are caused by men not getting enough sex". The problem is that he doesn't blame men for this, he blames women. Even though men are the ones doing the shooting, you can be drat sure that JP is going to try and find a way to blame it on women. Or, as he puts it: “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” quote:"Society would be safer, happier, and healthier if only the government would make sure that men get to gently caress as much as they want." What else do you call Enforced Monogamy? Yeah, he isn't suggesting government run brothels, just that we 'enforce monogamy', which has the effect of getting incels 'what they need'. quote:The quote came from the New York Times article called "Custodian of the Patriarchy" and was clearly a hit piece so why we would take statement in that article as accurate without more information is unclear. Because he didn't publicly rebut it. If someone lies about you in a news article you sat down for and lies about you, the rational response is to publicly say "No, I didn't say that." Peterson didn't because the woman he was sitting with for the interview undoubtedly has tapes of every lovely misogynistic word that left his mouth. In fact, on his own website he repeatedly doubles down on his usage of the phrase, and merely 'clarifies' it. But yeah, lets give him the benefit of the doubt and assume what he means is just a cultural norm, not a government run, kick in your door if you gently caress someone else program. I mean, I don't believe he wouldn't stone a woman for loving around, but benefit of the doubt. What else does he say? quote:“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” So the problem, in his eyes, is that women don't have to gently caress you if they don't want to. If you take out all the coded language and just break it down, his argument is that we have this problem in society because women get to choose who they sleep with. You know what you call someone who blames women for all of society's problems? You call them Mr.Peterson, apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Being called a racist is not a threat to free speech, it is a consequence of having free speech. People are free to call each other racist, that's what freedom of speech is. It can be that. But more often, calling someone is racist is the justification for limiting their free speech. For many people, if not most people, being a racist is about the worst thing a person could be. So if you are a college student who wants to shut down an event with someone like, say, Ann Coulter then it's helpful to first call her a racist so that people won't want to be associated with her and the invitation to speak will be rescinded. Thus it is a prelude to the suppression of speech. To avoid misunderstanding, I don't like Ann Coulter at all. This is not a defense of her, it's a defense of her right to go to a college campus and deliver any inane speech she comes up with. If I was attending such a college, I'd go to her lecture and ask her a tough, challenging question. What I wouldn't do is participate in a violent protest, disrupt her event and try to shut it down. Of course there are genuine vile racist people in the world. But the purpose that many leftists have in using the word "racist" is to de-platform people and make them social pariahs so they have to be ostracized from polite society, in essence ensuring that they have no place in the public debate, i.e. shutting down their speech.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
Why do you hate free speech realtalk.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
If Im not a racist, then why does everyone keep saying I am?? Hurrrrrr
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Of course there are genuine vile racist people in the world. But the purpose that many leftists have in using the word "racist" is to de-platform people and make them social pariahs so they have to be ostracized from polite society, in essence ensuring that they have no place in the public debate, i.e. shutting down their speech. You're strenuously avoiding the subject of that speech, which is often racist poo poo wrapped up in a politer package, with added numbers for the "rational" "skeptics". edit: and to be clear, I don't give a poo poo about people shutting that down
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:You have not established that anyone on the right is having their right to free speech abridged at all, let alone with impunity. Exhibit A: Charles Murray: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/06/some-harvard-students-protest-charles-murray-speech/?utm_term=.f25a12c1e885 Paul Gottfried: https://spec.hamilton.edu/visiting-political-theorist-sparks-protest-on-campus-d105d67d374d Milo Yiannopoulos: http://time.com/4955245/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-free-speech-week/ And, relating to Jordan Peterson, Linday Shepherd: https://www.macleans.ca/lindsay-shepherd-wilfrid-laurier/ Shepherd got in trouble for showing a video of a Peterson lecture to a class. She showed the Peterson video to represent one side of an argument, then she gave the other side of the same argument. You'd have to not be paying attention at all to think that the right to free speech isn't being abridged for non-Leftists on college campuses. This is not something that I pay attention to much, but I'm bringing it up because this is one of the things that Jordan Peterson is fighting against and he was being ridiculed for even thinking this is a problem. Bill C-16 in fact threatened his right to speak freely, and his protest in favor of free speech is what launched him into national prominence. Then there is the university phenomenon of safe spaces, trigger warnings, lectures about cultural appropriation, white privilege, which costumes students are allowed to wear on Halloween, among other things. Maybe these things are overblown in your opinion. But it's still something that decent people can push back against. If anyone has the right to devote some energy to this cause, it's a college professor.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
Why do you hate free speech realtalk.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
loving Milo? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:This is not a defense of her, it's a defense of her right to go to a college campus and deliver any inane speech she comes up with. She doesn't have that right, at least, not in the way you think she does. If she wants to walk onto the campus quad and speak aloud, she's more than entitled to, but she does not have a right to a venue with a microphone and an audience. Students protesting until the campus decides to cancel her venue is not a limitation of free speech, it is an exercise of free speech. Having an invitation to speak somewhere rescinded is not violating anyone's right to free speech you loving drooling idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
Caros posted:... at which point I bet you're snappishly instructed to call him Professor, thank you very much and then come the tears, for 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The Frankfurt School means Jews, especially any time people talk about it as a sinister influence on culture or academia. Some of them were big with the drop-out culture of the late 60s, but ever since that collapsed they've been a small historical footnote in leftist thought and a huge bold text section in barely-disguised-antisemitism thought. Your argument here is indistinguishable from the smear-campaigns that neo-conservatives use against anyone who criticizes Israel for their occupation of Palestine and treatment of Palestinians. Ideas have a long shelf life. Many on the left are still heavily influenced by the writing of Karl Marx. There is a clear bifurcation on the Left between classical Marxists and those who focus on identity politics. The Frankfurt School demarcates this bifurcation. Influential thinkers in the Frankfurt School such as Herbert Marcuse and Jürgen Habermas are still cited by leftist professors on college campuses today. Whereas old-school Marxists would talk about class, ending capitalism and worker ownership of the means of production, Frankfurt-school proponents speak about transgender bathrooms, cultural appropriation and white privilege. If you're triggered by the phrase "Frankfurt School", you can substitute a different label for the evident phenomenon of leftist identity politics. Jordan Peterson wants the emphasis to return to the individual. Rights are individual and people should be judged by their character and unique attributes rather than their group affiliation.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
The first amendment, while not explicitly mentioning it, has been held to protect Freedom of Association. Part of freedom of association is freedom of DISASSOCIATION, unilateral disassociation even. Legally you can't be compelled to associate with anyone. So not only is it not a first amendment violation to not hand Ann Coulter a microphone, even in the event that they had previously invited her, DISinviting her at any time is ITSELF protected by the first amendment. If a bunch of students use their Freedom of Speech to complain about a university planning to host Ann Coulter, and in response that university uses Freedom of Association to instead, not host Ann Coulter, the only one attacking anyone's rights is YOU, because you want to make them host her anyway. RealTalk posted:There is a clear bifurcation on the Left between classical Marxists and those who focus on identity politics. The Frankfurt School demarcates this bifurcation. Nah.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
So much effort made at "scholarly-looking" writing (demarcates this bifurcation lol) and then he drops a "triggered" like a turd in a pool.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Exhibit A: A man who wrote a fradulent book attempting to explain how black people suck because they're dumb, not because of generations of oppression.quote:Paul Gottfried: The man who coined the term Alt-Right, who hosts an annual conference for white nationalists, co-founded by Richard 'Captain America would have punched me too' Spencer. Hmm. quote:Milo Yiannopoulos: A white supremacist and a guy who doesn't think pedophillia is a big deal. Really winning me over. quote:And, relating to Jordan Peterson, Linday Shepherd: Her speech wasn't attacked. She ran a class that dealt with things like writing format an essay design and decided to cause a big fuckup about gender identity in a class on whether the oxford comma was appropriate. Oh, and then white supremacists held a rally for her 'free speech'. quote:You'd have to not be paying attention at all to think that the right to free speech isn't being abridged for non-Leftists on college campuses. Or, and I know this might sound crazy, students at colleges aren't a big fan of Nazis, and they throw a fit when their tuition dollars are spent bringing nazis to talk to their school about how great nazism is. quote:This is not something that I pay attention to much, but I'm bringing it up because this is one of the things that Jordan Peterson is fighting against and he was being ridiculed for even thinking this is a problem. Can you quote us some non Nazi examples? Like, just a normal, everyday republican or right leaning figure who gets run out on the rail. Because every one of your examples is a piece of poo poo who should be hit in the face with a brick until they admit the holocaust is real. Yes, even the jewish guy who pals around with white nationalists. quote:Bill C-16 in fact threatened his right to speak freely, and his protest in favor of free speech is what launched him into national prominence. No it didn't. Bill C-16 would have prohibited discrimination based on gender identity or expression. The only prohibition is that he wouldn't be able to use his very public platform to publicly discriminate against those weaker than him. Your argument is, in essence, that the ADA prohibits your right to speak ill of the disabled. I want you to think about that. quote:Then there is the university phenomenon of safe spaces, trigger warnings, lectures about cultural appropriation, white privilege, which costumes students are allowed to wear on Halloween, among other things. Wahhhhhhhhhhh. quote:Maybe these things are overblown in your opinion. But it's still something that decent people can push back against. If anyone has the right to devote some energy to this cause, it's a college professor. You've yet to actually give examples of 'decent' people.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:It can be that. But more often, calling someone is racist is the justification for limiting their free speech. For many people, if not most people, being a racist is about the worst thing a person could be. So if you are a college student who wants to shut down an event with someone like, say, Ann Coulter then it's helpful to first call her a racist so that people won't want to be associated with her and the invitation to speak will be rescinded. Thus it is a prelude to the suppression of speech. Okay, I feel like we need to back this up a little. You keep saying that people are limiting free speech, but even in your long list o' racist example, you didn't actually provide evidence of people's speech being limited. You gave examples of people who were not given a platform to speak, but not an example of those who were prevented from speaking. Your racists have an unlimited right to go on the public sidewalk and scream about how much they want a white ethnostate. No one is stopping them from doing that. What you are upset about, is that the public in general, and students in particular, are using their free speech to talk about how much they don't like it when the 'alt right' comes to their campus to give a speech on how great white people are, or how awful women are, or how terrible black people are. You are complaining about the free speech and right to assemble of these groups. And lets be clear, Ann Coulter is an enormous loving racist. She has called for straight up genocide in the past. She routinely talks about how great it would be if there were no black people in america because of how stupid she thinks they are. No one needs to 'call' coulter a racist. She is, in fact, a racist. Also, since you brought up coulter, Lets talk about her. The school where she was going to give one of her racist speeches allowed her to speak. They said 'You know what, we are a public university and you are a piece of poo poo, but we are going to allow you to speak because that is part of our job as an institution. We won't even charge you for your security even though it will cost us tens of thousands of dollars more than we bring in from your event. Here are the available days.' To which Coulter started crying, because the available days were during a period when class wouldn't be in session, and thus there was less likely to be an event. She specifically attempted to book the event entirely to pearl clutch about how those drat dirty liberals wouldn't let her talk. She is concern trolling about free speech. Oh, and one more thing: "They're Democrats always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." - Ann Coulter quote:To avoid misunderstanding, I don't like Ann Coulter at all. This is not a defense of her, it's a defense of her right to go to a college campus and deliver any inane speech she comes up with. Sure you don't. quote:If I was attending such a college, I'd go to her lecture and ask her a tough, challenging question. Sure you would. quote:What I wouldn't do is participate in a violent protest, disrupt her event and try to shut it down. Not without a hood, amirite? quote:Of course there are genuine vile racist people in the world. But the purpose that many leftists have in using the word "racist" is to de-platform people and make them social pariahs so they have to be ostracized from polite society, in essence ensuring that they have no place in the public debate, i.e. shutting down their speech. Or, and just bear with me here, the people you are defending are racist. And people are calling them racist because of the racist things they've said. Ann Coulter Bonus round! quote:“I think there are cultures that are obviously deficient. And if they weren’t deficient, you wouldn’t be sitting in America interviewing me — I’d be sitting in Mexico." quote:“You fled that culture because there are a lot of problems with that culture. We can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here. When you bring the people here, you bring those cultures here. That includes honor killings, it includes uncles raping their nieces, it includes dumping litter all over, it includes not paying your taxes, it includes paying bribes to government officials. That isn’t our culture." quote:“I think our motto should be, post-9/11, 'Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.” quote:“But unfortunately for liberals, there is no racism in America. There is more cholera in America than there is racism. But they have to invent it.” quote:Talk about making fun of rape! "Sweden Opened Doors To Muslim Immigration, Today It’s The Rape Capital Of The West. quote:"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Your argument here is indistinguishable from the smear-campaigns that neo-conservatives use against anyone who criticizes Israel for their occupation of Palestine and treatment of Palestinians. FYI it's possible to recognize the economic flaws in capitalism and the social flaws in our white patriarchal society at the same time. Being a leftist does not mean having to pick just one or the other
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Bill C-16 in fact threatened his right to speak freely, and his protest in favor of free speech is what launched him into national prominence. State which part of Bill C-16 you believe threatens anyone's right to speak freely.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:When Peterson said monogamy should be "enforced", he meant as a social rule and value. As a custom. As something that is socially encouraged. Oh, so the the thing our society already does and has been doing since forever and ever and that's always worked out perfectly. What a deep thinker!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
Caros posted:I'd honestly be surprised if this guy is Jrodefeld tbh. His one probate is kiiiiinda similar, but his posting itt lacks the hallmark trait of Jrodefeld writing. The staggered paragraphs are a dead giveaway for me. Wow. First you say "conservatives and libertarians almost universally are racists or bigots". And then you say "Short of outright violence I support any and all attempts by left wing protesters to shut down what amount to hate speech rallies by conservatives." Here's another tactic that one might take. First, affirm the right of conservatives and libertarians to hold rallies, or speak on college campuses. Then go to those rallies and ask tough, challenging questions that logically refute the arguments they are making. Or, in a calm and non-disruptive manner, pass out fliers outside the event that inform attendants of a contrary argument. Without disrupting the speech or intimidating people who want to hear the speaker. Is this a novel concept to you? If your position is that virtually all of your political opponents are racists (meaning irredeemably odious people who must be ostracized) and it is the duty of all decent people to shut down their events and mercilessly mock them in public, this seems both unethical in its own right and counterproductive. I actually don't have any intention of spending much more time defending Jordan Peterson, not because I think you are characterizing his views accurately but rather that I like to speak for myself. If we are going to parse every errant tweet or comb through every statement Peterson has ever made when it's not possible for me to verify the veracity of every statement or put it into context, this seems like a recipe for a very futile discourse. But seriously, why would you use a quote taken from an obvious hit piece and character assassination attempt in the New York Times, without suspecting that it was intentionally misleading? I don't doubt that the New York Times interviewed him for several hours at least. Anyone knows that people can be made to sound any way a person wishes to portray them as if they simply cherry pick quotes out of context. Imagine if you posted hundreds or thousands of hours of lectures and gave hundreds of in depth interviews with media outlets around the world on the most challenging and controversial topics. You'd make your share of mistakes and misstatements, but you'd give your opponents a lot of ammunition with which to misquote you. What if Peterson said instead that "it's good for society that our culture values monogamy and disapproves of polygamy and infidelity". Would there be anything controversial about the comment? But since he said "enforced", everyone pretended as if Peterson was advocating that the government enslave women and grant every loser man a sex slave. I can't accept that people are that loving stupid. What's interesting is that you cite some libertarians as examples of racists. You mention Walter Block, who was also misquoted and misrepresented by the New York Times. You said that he said "Slavery wasn't so bad, apart from the forcible association they were singing songs and picking cotton." That is not exactly right, but it's better than what the Times reported. The New York Times simply said "Walter Block, who says that slavery wasn't so bad" and they left it at that. If you take the worst thing imaginable, and remove all the bad things about it, it's not so bad anymore. But if you omit "remove all the bad things about it" you convey the precise opposite of what the full statement actually said. It's as if I were to quote Winston Churchill as saying "Democracy is the worst form of government" while omitting "except for all the others". In context, Churchill really meant "Democracy is the best form of government that has yet been tried" but selectively quoting him gives the impression that he said the precise opposite. If this is the known history of how the Times selectively quotes conservatives and libertarians, what reason would you have to accept at face value a quote pulled from an obvious hit piece? You just being a dishonest and malevolent person would explain it, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. About Peterson being a horrible misogynist... What I read about Peterson is that he's trying to get angry and disaffected young men to shape up and take responsibility for their lives so that they can attract a good woman. I'm not entirely sure what Peterson means by the tweet you cited (if it is indeed a Peterson tweet), but the first part of it is "Men: if you treat women as disposable sex objects..." Implying that you shouldn't treat woman as sex objects. Shouldn't a misogynist be taking the opposite view? Something like woman are here to serve men and be sex objects? Why would he be spending so much energy trying to get men to shape up and get their act together rather than focusing on the failures of women? Okay, enough about Peterson. I want to talk about libertarians and conservatives all being racist. You say: "Now you yourself might not be racist, but when the people you identify with politically are, that puts you in a difficult spot." I don't know if it puts me in a difficult spot. After all, according to your definition, you cannot be a libertarian or conservative of any stripe without being a racist by definition. Your words: "conservatives and libertarians almost universally are racists or bigots". Your throw me a small concession by using the word "almost". Maybe not all conservatives are racists and bigots, maybe only 90-95%. Everyone at Reason, Cato, conservative columnists at the Washington Post and New York Times, racist (almost) every man jack one of them. This is silly. It goes without saying that I don't agree with this characterization, but I'll leave that aside. My duty now is to tremble in my boots and fret that I may be seen as associating with racists. What does it say about me that I'm willing to overlook such overt bigotry? Well, let me ask a very pointed question and I expect an honest answer. Who did you vote for in the last election? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd bet that you voted for Hillary Clinton if only to stop the monster Donald Trump. The question I'd ask is what does this say about YOU? No doubt saying something racist is not nice. Nor is associating too closely thirty years ago with the John Birch Society. Unforgivable. Making an off-color joke that disparages women? Shameless. Let's see how these horrible offenses stack up with the public record of a centrist Democrat like Hillary Clinton. During the 1990s, Bill Clinton enforced brutal economic sanctions against Iraq, and periodically bombed the middle east, most grotesquely as a distraction from his impeachment hearings in 1998. Credible reports suggest that 500,000 children died in Iraq as a direct result of our sanctions. And I mean died in the most horrific manner possible. They literally starved to death or were ravaged by treatable illnesses until their frail bodies failed them because they were denied access to the medicine that could have saved them. Madeleine Albright famously said that the price of 500,000 small corpses was "worth it". In 2003 Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War despite the fact that any thinking person could figure out that the "intelligence" that purported to prove that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda was pure, unadulterated propaganda. She chose political expediency over concern for the welfare of millions of innocent Iraqis. She has moral culpability for all the horror our government unleashed upon the Muslim world the wake of the Iraq invasion. Hillary continued to defend her vote as late as 2008, when Barack Obama forced her to backtrack. As Secretary of State, Hillary openly supported Obama's drone program across the Middle East. She pushed for Obama to strike Syria, but thankfully Obama caved to public pressure and refused. Most disastrously, she is responsible for invading Libya and toppling Muammar Gaddafi. Libya was one of the most prosperous African countries and the nation was thrown into squalor and chaos. ISIS and other radical fundamentalist groups took over and hundreds of thousands have been displaced or killed. Gaddafi, a popular leader who never threatened the United States, was sodomized with a knife in the streets. Slowly tortured to death. These disastrous Middle East wars are primarily responsible for the migrant crisis that is affecting Europe at the moment. Call me crazy, but the mass murder that Hillary Clinton is culpable for is a little worse morally speaking, than anyone who utters peaceful speech that you consider to be bigoted. And I don't concede that the conservatives and/or libertarians that I like are bigots by any reasonable definition of that term. But even if they were, I'd still argue that they'd be far better ethically than a war criminal like Hillary Clinton. So her role as a mass murderer certainly wasn't a deal-breaker for you. Mass murdering innocent Muslims by the millions? That's just a sober policy disagreement. But gently caress man, if you ever spoke at the John Birch Society or were spotted in front of a Confederate Flag, that's grounds for being a social pariah. There's never any reasonable rationale for voting for someone who committed those grave atrocities. And even if you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, I'm positive that many people here who would lecture me about the so-called misogyny of Jordan Peterson or the racism of various conservatives and libertarians certainly did. You know who I voted for? Jill Stein. I voted for her despite my profound disagreements with her on economics and many other issues. I voted for her because I think that war is the worst thing that governments do and therefore should be the thing that I should focus on stopping first. I'm willing to overlook other disagreements to further the goal of ending the empire, slashing the military budget and ending the surveillance State, all issues that Jill Stein was very good on. She was also very good on warning against making Russia into an enemy and igniting a new Cold War. I feel like I've got my moral compass attuned perfectly while yours is hopelessly mis-calibrated. Chew on that for a while.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
Motherfucker nobody's gonna read that let alone answer it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 08:25
|
|
|
large adult son posted:You're strenuously avoiding the subject of that speech, which is often racist poo poo wrapped up in a politer package, with added numbers for the "rational" "skeptics". Do you know why the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie in 1978 and again defended the right of alt-right white nationalists to organize in Charlottesville a year ago? They know something that you apparently do not. The legal battles over the first amendment are never over popular speech. The cases that form the basis of law that is used as precedent in future cases often involve vile and hateful speech. But if you concede that the right to hateful speech isn't protected by the first amendment, further encroachments on freedom of speech that this allows eventually threaten all of our speech. And no one with any sense thinks that the Nazis in Skokie or the white nationalists in Charlottesville are comparable to Ann Coulter speaking at Berkeley. But the ACLU thought that the Nazis had free of speech so why shouldn't Coulter be allowed to speak at Berkeley without protesters trying to forcefully shut down the event? By the way, I'm well aware that it was not the government that is threatening to shut down the speech of people like Coulter, but the principle is much the same. If popular sentiment is that people like Coulter don't have speech that is worth protecting, then it lays the groundwork for the government to restrict speech.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 08:42
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Do you know why the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie in 1978 and again defended the right of alt-right white nationalists to organize in Charlottesville a year ago? And yet the ACLU did not come out and protect the free speech rights of all of these poor maligned conservatives/libertarians that you've raised. Do you know why? Here's a clue: those Nazi rallies were held in completely open public venues, something that a university auditorium is not Ann Coulter can talk at any venue willing to take her, and no one is stopping her from setting up a podium in the park and saying any hateful poo poo that she wants. Refusing to give Ann Coulter a platform to speak on is not the same thing as preventing her from speaking. This has been explained to you several times already
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:By the way, I'm well aware that it was not the government that is threatening to shut down the speech of people like Coulter, but the principle is much the same. If popular sentiment is that people like Coulter don't have speech that is worth protecting, then it lays the groundwork for the government to restrict speech. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
RealTalk, I want to go to your house and give a big speech about what an idiot tool you are. I'm certain that you'll agree to this because you are a defender of the right to free speech, correct? Part of my speech will require drinking all the beer in your fridge and leaving a double-decker in your toilet
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 08:55
|
|