|
Post by Christine on Jan 15, 2017 22:14:25 GMT -5
I don't need a link to Wikipedia on "false equivalence" but gee thanks.
Milo is hateful, disparaging, and bigoted toward women, Muslims and LGBT.
Because he doesn't actually call for them to be exterminated, you think his rhetoric isn't even close to KKK rhetoric? ETA: there is a shit-ton of white supremacist rhetoric that has nothing to do with "extermination" and is still considered hate speech. The fact that you kept repeating "nothing about extermination" in your responses to my articles is nothing more than pedantic obtuseness on your part.
I didn't "equate" Milo with the KKK. The reason I brought the KKK up was as an alternative example of speakers one might protest, regardless of "free speech," (which I still don't buy as applicable here) and as an example of hate speech, as you and Amadan both seemed to be igoring why there were protests, and claiming suppression of speech, not to mention wheeling out your "regressive-left" spiel (which, by the way, is getting really fucking old, really fast) .
Like I said, pick another college protest to make your argument, because right now you just appear to be defending freedom of bigotry, racism, and sexism.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 16, 2017 6:37:00 GMT -5
Even Aaron Sorkin, liberal screenwriter of The West Wing and A Few Good Men, among others, understood that the Milo issue is about principles 21 years ago when he penned The American President. (bolding mine) Denying a public platform to speakers and those who want to hear them, particularly when that platform has been "legally" reserved for said speaker, is NOT advanced citizenship. It's fear of loss of control. It's a willingness to shut down debate, rather than engage with it. It's the same argument that leads inevitably to prison for whistleblowers who defy the political class. It's a dangerous path to follow.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 16, 2017 7:48:15 GMT -5
Well, again, he wasn't denied the platform, the Republican students called off the event. Milo ended up speaking there the next day, outside, with a bullhorn, funnily enough (I did not know that when I made the suggestion yesterday).
Milo is a troll, plain and simple. His idea of pushing back against PC and SJW and feminism and everything else he's against is to be an outrageous, offensive, asshole. And he certainly has a right to do that, but it's a horrible way to go about it, and he comes across to me as not really giving a fuck about anything, genuinely, other than his own "performances." He's like Trump during the campaign, on steroids, all the time.
And the saddest part is how many people like his behavior, not because through it he's conveying some "truth" as he claims, but because they love the cruelty and the mockery and the bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 16, 2017 10:10:48 GMT -5
So you would make the same argument about a KKK member being invited to speak? I'll assume yes, since you'd want to be consistent. But since the university didn't ban Milo, let alone did police cart him off to jail for uttering his filth, I see this more as democracy in action, and I'm pretty fucking happy about it. Don't misunderstand, I think there are plenty of potential speakers whom one might not agree with but who should be "allowed" to speak, and who have been unfairly uninvited from speaking engagements (Condoleezza Rice comes to mind) but this guy??? Save your argument for someone who's not a hateful, attention-whoring douchebag. Contrary to (apparently) popular belief, the old saying does not start out: "First they came for the hateful, attention-whoring douchebags..." Yes, I would argue that a campus group that invited a KKK speaker should be allowed to do so, and that protests would be appropriate, but not violence or rewriting rules to disallow the group from inviting people. But I agree with Opty (and yes, I am familiar with Milo's speech) that he is not comparable to the KKK. He's a professional troll and clickbaiter. He says all sorts of shit to provoke people into having meltdowns. I think the College Republicans were idiots for inviting him - clearly they just wanted to "trigger SJWs" and got pretty much the reaction they wanted, and Milo is hardly a true representative of GOP ideals. Just like it's kind of hilarious that the alt-right kinda sorta embrace him (because he triggers SJWs) even though he's gay and so most of the alt-right would put him up against the wall right along with the SJWs, come the revolution. But yes, free fucking speech. ETA: Oh, and as for the "regressive left spiel" you find getting old - I find the regressive left is getting really old. So settle in and make yourself comfortable with hearing about it a lot. If Don can turn everything from moon landings to mass murders into a rant about the gummint, yeah, I am going to exercise my prerogative to harp on the thing that chaps my hide the most. Do feel free to start threads about your pet peeve whensoever it pleases you.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 16, 2017 18:14:09 GMT -5
I don't need to start any threads on my recently-developed pet peeve, I just need to respond to your threads. Thanks for the response, I really do appreciate it. I find your take on the theoretical KKK speaker to be consistent, and even though I disagree, I can respect your "no matter who/what" position. It's a principled stance. I agree that, legally, everyone should be able to talk whatever trash they want to; i.e., no one should face prosecution for being a bigoted, hateful troll. Beyond that, I really don't care if people are not invited, disinvited, banned, etc. from spewing their filth in any given medium, be it Twitter or a college campus. ETA: if Milo had been speaking in a public place, and police had made him leave, I'd object. If people had assaulted him, I'd object. These things, as far as we know, did not happen. There was not an abuse of power by government agents, and no laws were broken by protesters.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 16, 2017 18:47:05 GMT -5
Well, again, he wasn't denied the platform, the Republican students called off the event. Milo ended up speaking there the next day, outside, with a bullhorn, funnily enough (I did not know that when I made the suggestion yesterday). Milo is a troll, plain and simple. His idea of pushing back against PC and SJW and feminism and everything else he's against is to be an outrageous, offensive, asshole. And he certainly has a right to do that, but it's a horrible way to go about it, and he comes across to me as not really giving a fuck about anything, genuinely, other than his own "performances." He's like Trump during the campaign, on steroids, all the time. And the saddest part is how many people like his behavior, not because through it he's conveying some "truth" as he claims, but because they love the cruelty and the mockery and the bigotry. Building a bridge to the other side always creates a hangout for trolls underneath. That's where they live. Consider it a necessary bug.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 16, 2017 18:58:21 GMT -5
If I understand your meaning, couldn't the same be said of the "extreme" SJWs?
Something I was thinking about earlier... how many students are there on the UC Davis campus? It seems 100 or so wanted to hear Milo, and a 100 or so were outraged enough to protest. Is it crazy of me to assume that several thousand didn't give a shit either way?
If so, life is imitating college, methinks.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jan 16, 2017 21:11:41 GMT -5
If I understand your meaning, couldn't the same be said of the "extreme" SJWs? Something I was thinking about earlier... how many students are there on the UC Davis campus? It seems 100 or so wanted to hear Milo, and a 100 or so were outraged enough to protest. Is it crazy of me to assume that several thousand didn't give a shit either way? If so, life is imitating college, methinks. 36,000 - 200 = a lot didn't care
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 17, 2017 11:01:46 GMT -5
If I understand your meaning, couldn't the same be said of the "extreme" SJWs? Conservatives and moderates, for the most part, are not demanding that people who say things they dislike be denied a platform. They might gripe on Facebook about Meryl Streep's Oscar speech or blog scathingly about Lena Dunham, but they don't stage protests or claim to feel "unsafe" if Michael Moore shows up at their university. It is mostly leftists who are trying to carve out increasingly large spaces in society in which basically they should not be exposed to people saying things that offend them, invoking phrases like "triggering" and "unsafe" and "verbal violence" and "hate speech" to reframe what we used to call "shit I disagree with" as something dangerous. First, from a strictly legal basis, UC Davis is a state school, not a private institution, so there actually are First Amendment issues with UC selecting who is and is not allowed to speak there. (In this case, the university itself did not prevent Milo from speaking, though it's unclear from the conflicting accounts of what the campus police's role was in cancelling his first appearance.) Second, I disagree with the notion that free speech only applies to issues where the First Amendment can be invoked in a legal context. Free speech is a concept, and an ideal - it does not exist solely within the framework of American Constitutional law. People in other countries care about free speech. We care about free speech here on this board, even though the First Amendment clearly does not apply to anything the mods might decide to prohibit or censor. Of course that doesn't mean I think everyone should be allowed to say anything anywhere. I agree, for example, that Twitter has every legal right to say "Liberals can say anything they want, but anyone who offends liberals gets banned." They are a private, for-profit company, they can do what they want. I don't think if they did that that the government should step in and say they're not allowed to. But they would certainly be taking a stand against free speech, and should be reviled for it, and it would be a big deal, because Twitter, like Facebook and other large media companies, has a very large influence on social discourse. It's not just a little private discussion area setting their own rules of engagement for members when a media network with global reach makes decisions like that. Saying "Well, that's not a First Amendment issue" is true but not the point.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 17, 2017 19:57:24 GMT -5
Conservatives and moderates, for the most part, are not demanding that people who say things they dislike be denied a platform. They might gripe on Facebook about Meryl Streep's Oscar speech or blog scathingly about Lena Dunham, but they don't stage protests or claim to feel "unsafe" if Michael Moore shows up at their university. It is mostly leftists who are trying to carve out increasingly large spaces in society in which basically they should not be exposed to people saying things that offend them, invoking phrases like "triggering" and "unsafe" and "verbal violence" and "hate speech" to reframe what we used to call "shit I disagree with" as something dangerous. I think that's not only an oversimplification of the position of *most* liberals, but also a blatant pass on the shit-stirring that *some* conservatives have been at for the last eight years. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many people I know personally who believe, for example, that Obama is a Muslim, was born in Kenya, is a socialist, and hates America. And what about this claim, that some here are making, that a significant number of people voted Trump because they're being called racists, homophobes, etc.? If that (voting for Trump because people have said mean things) isn't some crybaby fucking shit, I don't know what is. Like I said earlier, somewhere: Pot/kettle. The griping about SJWs, as I've said before, is just as absurd as theirs can be, imo. It's very clear. It's clear from what the president of the university said. And, for the record, I disagree with him on one thing: I do not "respect all views." I respect the right of the person to have them. But the views themselves often get zero respect from me. Wait, so there is concern that what people don't get to say, no matter how vile, will have an influence on social discourse? Kind of like how some people are concerned about vile things being said having an influence on social discourse? Pot/kettle, but I repeat myself.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 18, 2017 5:41:37 GMT -5
I think that's not only an oversimplification of the position of *most* liberals, but also a blatant pass on the shit-stirring that *some* conservatives have been at for the last eight years. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many people I know personally who believe, for example, that Obama is a Muslim, was born in Kenya, is a socialist, and hates America. They're idiots. But I rarely see them exercising influence to keep liberals from speaking in public. Maybe it's because there are so few conservatives in academia - I have no doubt those sorts of people would try to keep liberals off-campus if they controlled the campuses - but they don't. Likewise social media platforms. I'm not talking about which side has more idiots voicing idiotic opinions - I'm talking about which side has been more successful lately at shutting down disagreement. You're simplifying the argument. I doubt many people just decided to go vote for Trump to show some liberal who called them a racist. Rather, they perceive the culture war going on and decided voting for Trump was the best way to fight back. I don't agree because I think Trump is going to do horrible things as President that will not make up for whatever petty satisfaction we might see in making SJWs cry, but if anyone did vote for Trump because they're literally afraid of liberals and the culture war, sure, they are being as irrational as the liberals who want safe spaces. Milo disputes that. I am not saying Milo's version is correct (I tend to believe the university), but it is disputed, and thus not entirely clear. No one has denied that speech can have an influence on social discourse and that vile speech should be challenged. But I am arguing that we should not allow speech - even vile speech - to be censored (in the broader sense of the word, not in the strictly Constitutional sense). You are not showing any pot/kettle inconsistencies unless you catch me arguing that college students shouldn't be allowed to protest at Milo's events.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 18, 2017 8:38:56 GMT -5
They're idiots. But I rarely see them exercising influence to keep liberals from speaking in public. Maybe it's because there are so few conservatives in academia - I have no doubt those sorts of people would try to keep liberals off-campus if they controlled the campuses - but they don't. Likewise social media platforms. I'm not talking about which side has more idiots voicing idiotic opinions - I'm talking about which side has been more successful lately at shutting down disagreement. I think it depends on where you live. I live in a very conservative area, and though no one "shuts me up" exactly, no one invites my opinion, either. It's generally "no politics, Christine is here!" LOL. (This even happened with my new neighbor already.) This really is how a lot of conservatives feel about liberals, ime. And it's not just lately, it's been like... forever. And it really is silly, I agree. I think the reason for it is often because we only hear about the extreme stuff in the media, we don't hear about the vast majority of normal liberals (or conservatives, for that matter). Yeah, I believe Milo as far as I can pick him up and throw him. My point about pot/kettle is that both sides think they need to control what's being said, or not said, because of (to borrow your word) "fear" of the outcome. Personally, I have no problem with trolls not being allowed to speak in a place like a university. If you're a troll, you don't belong in reasoned discourse. But, like I said upthread, there have been times where someone has been effectively stopped from speaking who shouldn't have been, so I can agree with you that far. ETA: I also have no problem with "hate speech" being disallowed, because I think allowing it is giving it credence/respect it doesn't deserve. It deserves to be censored. That said, "hate speech" can be too broadly defined, so there's that.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 18, 2017 8:44:01 GMT -5
Well, the problem with the last is determining who is a troll, no? Someone has to/gets to make that call. And that's problematic, I think. People get labelled as trolls on occasion not because they are trolls, but because the people doing the labeling want to discredit them and their opinions. It's a cheap rhetorical tactic.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 18, 2017 8:47:40 GMT -5
But we all here agree that Milo is a troll, and we are all reasonable.
We should set up a committee. The Troll Identification Committee (TIC).
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 18, 2017 9:50:31 GMT -5
Well, the problem with the last is determining who is a troll, no? Someone has to/gets to make that call. And that's problematic, I think. People get labelled as trolls on occasion not because they are trolls, but because the people doing the labeling want to discredit them and their opinions. It's a cheap rhetorical tactic. It's quite simple, really. Anyone who proposes the use of force against any peaceful individual, for any reason, is a troll. That's my definition, anyway. Is everybody happy with that? I thought not.
|
|