|
xthetenth posted:The loudest and most extreme people on each side get disproportionate visibility, and their opponents only make it worse, because they naturally try to show how unreasonable their opponents are. It takes conscious effort to keep the less extreme viewpoints in mind, not misrepresent them as their more extreme cousins, and to understand that they're pretty popular. The pox consuming DnD
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The pox consuming DnD eh they'll reopen gbs eventually
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:eh they'll reopen gbs eventually DnD will never be fixed until they start cracking down on posters like you :/
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:DnD will never be fixed until they start cracking down on posters like you :/ Gotta silence your critics amirite!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:DnD will never be fixed until they start cracking down on posters like you :/ d&d isn't broken, it's just disliked by bad posters who can't stop themselves from posting here anyway. i acknowledge and affirm your masochism
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Gotta silence your critics amirite! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Kingfish & falcon, the people you were quoting and responding to at the start of this discussion, were specifically objecting to "no-platforming" and similar attempts by students to deny conservative speakers the ability to speak, rather than register their objections or to convince the administration to withdraw an invitation. You have continued to complain that protesters were being denied the opportunity to convince people while the discussion was about disruptive behavior. You're lying when you say Kingfish was only talking about no-platforming, because he's said multiple times that he's also against any kind of protest that ends up with the lecture not taking place. quote:Even if we assume for the purposes of this discussion that a lecture hall is not a public space, do you believe that protesters have the right to deny otherwise authorized and approved users the use of that space? No, and I've never once said that I did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
I find it interesting that Secular Humanist and gobbagool have not commented on the ban being reversed for Maryam Namazie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You're lying when you say Kingfish was only talking about no-platforming, because he's said multiple times that he's also against any kind of protest that ends up with the lecture not taking place. You ought to clarify when you use words like "against." What are you attributing to me here exactly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I find it interesting that Secular Humanist and gobbagool have not commented on the ban being reversed for Maryam Namazie. well in gobbagol's case he probably hasn't googled her yet
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:You ought to clarify when you use words like "against." What are you attributing to me here exactly? Your own words.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Right.. so I personally disagree with the protestors but am not against their right to freely protest in any way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Right.. so I personally disagree with the protestors but am not against their right to freely protest in any way. Only with the caveat that they should be ignored. You never actually answered my question earlier about whether or not you think allowing people to vote but incinerating their votes immediately would be an insult to their enfranchisement because they're technically still allowed to physically engage in the act of voting, even if it is worthless in general principle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:well in gobbagol's case he probably hasn't googled her yet Lol. Yes I'm aware of the ban being lifted. How is that remotely relevant? Yes, the ban was lifted I believe because of salman loving rushdie swinging his dick around. It otherwise would likely not have been. And during her presentation people kept getting up and turning off the overhead and other insanely infantile things. Lots of Muslim students came up and apologized on their behalf after it was over, because they *wanted* to hear her speak. The conservative Muslims weren't havin any of that though, because Islamophobia. Edit: Also I like how there is no acknowledgement that this behavior is a problem. It's just "yeah well, she got reinvited... so..." Secular Humanist fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Right.. so I personally disagree with the protestors but am not against their right to freely protest in any way. You think they should protest, but that the administration should not be allowed to listen to them and act on their protests.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I find it interesting that Secular Humanist and gobbagool have not commented on the ban being reversed for Maryam Namazie. Busy making dinner for wife and kids. Still following though!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Lol. Yes I'm aware of the ban being lifted. How is that remotely relevant? Yes, the ban was lifted I believe because of salman loving rushdie swinging his dick around. It otherwise would likely not have been. And during her presentation people kept getting up and turning off the overhead and other insanely infantile things. Lots of Muslim students came up and apologized on their behalf after it was over, because they *wanted* to hear her speak. The conservative Muslims weren't havin any of that though, because Islamophobia. so you're mad that she was allowed to speak and people were mean to her in petty ways, and this is censorship how?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Lol. Yes I'm aware of the ban being lifted. How is that remotely relevant? Yes, the ban was lifted I believe because of salman loving rushdie swinging his dick around. It otherwise would likely not have been. And during her presentation people kept getting up and turning off the overhead and other insanely infantile things. Lots of Muslim students came up and apologized on their behalf after it was over, because they *wanted* to hear her speak. The conservative Muslims weren't havin any of that though, because Islamophobia. They made a mistake and then corrected it, so I'm not sure why you're so upset about it? You have to admit that it lessens your point about campuses being completely unreasonable in banning controversial speakers. It sounds like they were ultimately very reasonable. Obviously those people turning off the projector were being dumb, but all you can do at that point is get security to get them to leave.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so you're mad that she was allowed to speak and people were mean to her in petty ways, and this is censorship how? No you god damned obtuse moron, I'm mad because the conservative, borderline Islamist Muslim student organization was able to bully their way into having her invitation rescinded by claiming they felt "victimized" by the "Islamophobia" she would foster on campus. Isalmophobia is a complete horseshit word because any criticism of Islam, even things like "women are treated like dirt" is considered "hatespeech" under it's insanely nebulous definition. The campus feminist society, in a shameless display of virtue signalling, went on a crusade "in solidarity" with the conservative Muslim council to get her disinvited. Do you honestly think they had any loving clue who she actually was and what she actually does? They literally just saw the word "Islamophobe", and the status quo of women's rights under Islam (almost) remained safely intact. This situation has specific problems that make it unique, but it goes to show why you can't just assume every use of the word "racist" or "hatespeech" is justified.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
"she should have been allowed to speak!" *she was allowed to speak* "the people who were speaking when she was speaking should not have been allowed to speak!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:No you god damned obtuse moron, I'm mad because the conservative, borderline Islamist Muslim student organization was able to bully their way into having her invitation rescinded by claiming they felt "victimized" by the "Islamophobia" she would foster on campus. Isalmophobia is a complete horseshit word because any criticism of Islam, even things like "women are treated like dirt" is considered "hatespeech" under it's insanely nebulous definition. The campus feminist society, in a shameless display of virtue signalling, went on a crusade "in solidarity" with the conservative Muslim council to get her disinvited. Do you honestly think they had any loving clue who she actually was and what she actually does? They literally just saw the word "Islamophobe", and the status quo of women's rights under Islam (almost) remained safely intact. tell us more about Islamists bullying people and all the valid criticisms of Islam it is interesting how everyone you disagree with is a conservative bully or a vacant, ignorant virtue signaller. that is very interesting *pretends to write on legal pad* boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You think they should protest, but that the administration should not be allowed to listen to them and act on their protests. No.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"she should have been allowed to speak!" Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. No, not even close.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Only with the caveat that they should be ignored. Well are they a tiny, loud minority whose opinions are not actually reflective of the majority? Or are they voting for something that goes against the foundational principles of whatever organization or polity they're ostensibly members of? Dismissing unreasonable requests out of hand in these cases isn't a denial of anyone's enfranchisement, and the suggestion that the right to protest implies a corresponding right/duty for others to take your requests seriously is asinine. If you view free exchange and consideration of ideas as a foundational principle of higher education then dismissing requests for ideological censorship out of hand is no more "disenfranchising" than when a judge refuses to allow a town council the freedom to mandate religious indoctrination on first amendment grounds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. No, not even close. yeah, it's close
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:They made a mistake and then corrected it, so I'm not sure why you're so upset about it? Banning her in the first place wasn't reasonable, unless you agree that muslim women should just be seen and not heard
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Banning her in the first place wasn't reasonable, unless you agree that muslim women should just be seen and not heard look at mister "that muslim chick" chiding people for using people as convenient props over here
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Banning her in the first place wasn't reasonable, unless you agree that muslim women should just be seen and not heard Okay, but they unbanned her. You can't expect people to be perfect. I'm not even going to touch the second part of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:look at mister "that muslim chick" chiding people for using people as convenient props over here We'll never overcome his use of rhetorical judo!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
They didn't actually ban her, by the way. They just revoked her invitation. Which was lovely. They had a moment of introspection and said 'Hey, that was kind of lovely', so they extended another invitation which she accepted and she got to speak.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:look at mister "that muslim chick" chiding people for using people as convenient props over here Yes your Effectronica-lite persona is very edgy. We get it, you vape
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yes your Effectronica-lite persona is very edgy. We get it, you vape Did Effectronica kill your dog or something? God drat, dude.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Okay, but they unbanned her. You can't expect people to be perfect. Why is this relevant? Lots of invited speakers who should have been unbanned or shouldn't have been banned in the first place are getting banned. That is, in fact, the topic of this thread or at least part of it I thought? Yes, she got reinvited, thank god. Because it would have been scandalously outrageous for her not to be under the circumstances. That it happened at all is still very relevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Why is this relevant? Lots of invited speakers who should have been unbanned or shouldn't have been banned in the first place are getting banned. That is, in fact, the topic of this thread or at least part of it I thought? Yes, she got reinvited, thank god. Because it would have been scandalously outrageous for her not to be under the circumstances. it's hard to use someone who was allowed to speak as an example of people not being allowed to speak. that dog just don't hunt, friend "the roads are dangerous. you can tell because i got home safely today" see we call that a 'contradiction' where i come from
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's hard to use someone who was allowed to speak as an example of people not being allowed to speak. that dog just don't hunt, friend Did you even read anything I said? Do you have any concern at all that this type of thing could easily happen again to another Muslim reform speaker at some other university? Or should we just not ever discuss this incident again because she did, in fact, get reinvited!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Did you even read anything I said? Do you have any concern at all that this type of thing could easily happen again to another Muslim reform speaker at some other university? Or should we just not ever discuss this incident again because she did, in fact, get reinvited! i'm not really quaking in apocalyptic terror at the prospect of people having their invitations to speak rescinded and re-sent again. like that doesn't sound like a big deal, to me. maybe you can explain it to me?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:They didn't actually ban her, by the way. They just revoked her invitation. Which was lovely. They had a moment of introspection and said 'Hey, that was kind of lovely', so they extended another invitation which she accepted and she got to speak. Which shows that they make snap judgements when banning people. Baron Porkface fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's hard to use someone who was allowed to speak as an example of people not being allowed to speak. that dog just don't hunt, friend "The roads are not dangerous. You can tell because after the road went out, a celebrity intervened and in conjunction with media attention shamed the local town council into fixing it. Thus proving their safety and the town council's excellent track record re: maintenance forever."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i'm not really quaking in apocalyptic terror at the prospect of people having their invitations to speak rescinded and re-sent again. like that doesn't sound like a big deal, to me. maybe you can explain it to me? Hahaha jesus. Yep, again, I am aware that she was in fact reinvited in this particular case, because an incredibly famous ex-Muslim writer protested her disinvitation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Hahaha jesus. Yep, again, I am aware that she was in fact reinvited in this particular case, because an incredibly famous ex-Muslim writer protested her disinvitation. That's not really responsive to the post you're quoting at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:05
|
|