|
Post by Amadan on Feb 4, 2017 8:45:23 GMT -5
So, to summarize, you do indeed believe rioting and physical assault is an appropriate response to a racist speaking in public. I believe you're all about the effect and not at all about the cause. I believe you are all for supporting a racist speaking in public and totally indifferent to their racism. Summarize that. Sure. I'd summarize that as dishonesty. As I have pointed out several times already, you construct straw man effigies of what people who disagree with you are saying. If I support the right of a racist to speak in public, you dishonestly assert that I am "all for" racists speaking in public. If I say that a racist speaking in public does not justify riots or physical assaults, you dishonestly assert that I am "indifferent" to the racism. The only thing you are right about is that, in the very narrow sense of being against riots and physical assaults, I am more concerned with the result (riots and physical assaults) than the cause (someone who offended the rioters being permitted to exercise their free speech rights). If you were honest enough to say "I do not believe in free speech for people who hold views I consider harmful," I'd strongly disagree with your position, but it would at least be a position we could debate honestly, and I'd respect your willingness to be honest about what you believe and stand by it. But you won't do that - you won't deny it, you won't admit it, you just keep dancing around the point while throwing slimy insinuations of racism at people who have a more nuanced perspective than "Racists BAD!" And so it goes.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 4, 2017 12:39:55 GMT -5
I would love to see an actual example of Milo being racist. I've Googled and tried. Coming up empty. This is interesting: www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/01/27/forced-glamour-magazine-admit-im-not-white-supremacist/On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:37 PM, [redacted] wrote: And the rest of the article shows the chain of communications regarding the above. The progressive left loves to call people names, but unfortunately they do it oftentimes without actual evidence of behavior proving those names to be accurate. And then this snowballs into the sort of hysteria we saw at Berkeley.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 4, 2017 15:42:22 GMT -5
I would love to see an actual example of Milo being racist. I've Googled and tried. Coming up empty. Milo does say some pretty racist stuff, like his fetishization of black men and his harassment of Leslie Jones. It's hard to know how much, if any, of what he says should be taken either literally or seriously. He says things that are offensive on many levels. He pulls stunts like creating scholarships for white men. (Is that racist? It's obviously intended to be provocative and controversial, but of course he's playing the "reverse racism" card for precisely that reason.) He is probably not a white supremacist or white nationalist, he just likes saying things that he knows will be tagged as racist to which he can say "Am not!" He is a classic troll, and he's trolling the media and pop culture. Lest we give him too much credit, while he may not personally subscribe to white supremacism or the "alt right" movement, he is certainly aware that they've made him a mascot of sorts, and he is more than happy to play footsie with them.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 4, 2017 15:56:51 GMT -5
I believe you're all about the effect and not at all about the cause. I believe you are all for supporting a racist speaking in public and totally indifferent to their racism. Summarize that. Sure. I'd summarize that as dishonesty. As I have pointed out several times already, you construct straw man effigies of what people who disagree with you are saying. If I support the right of a racist to speak in public, you dishonestly assert that I am "all for" racists speaking in public. If I say that a racist speaking in public does not justify riots or physical assaults, you dishonestly assert that I am "indifferent" to the racism. The only thing you are right about is that, in the very narrow sense of being against riots and physical assaults, I am more concerned with the result (riots and physical assaults) than the cause (someone who offended the rioters being permitted to exercise their free speech rights). If you were honest enough to say "I do not believe in free speech for people who hold views I consider harmful," I'd strongly disagree with your position, but it would at least be a position we could debate honestly, and I'd respect your willingness to be honest about what you believe and stand by it. But you won't do that - you won't deny it, you won't admit it, you just keep dancing around the point while throwing slimy insinuations of racism at people who have a more nuanced perspective than "Racists BAD!" And so it goes. I would love to see an actual example of Milo being racist. I've Googled and tried. Coming up empty. This is interesting: www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/01/27/forced-glamour-magazine-admit-im-not-white-supremacist/On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:37 PM, [redacted] wrote: And the rest of the article shows the chain of communications regarding the above. The progressive left loves to call people names, but unfortunately they do it oftentimes without actual evidence of behavior proving those names to be accurate. And then this snowballs into the sort of hysteria we saw at Berkeley. So you go to the racist alt-right rag, Breitbart News, where Milo Yiannopoulous is an editor, to find evidence that Milo Yiannopoulous? Yeah, that's a real unbiased source, celawson. Your National Review subscription expire or something? You want actual evidence of behavior because the progressive Left loves to call people names without actual evidence? Well, hell, that's all you had to say because my Google-Fu is lot more advanced than yours.
The truth has a liberal bias. Which is why so many conservatives prefer their "alternative facts." Or as they're better known, lies.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 4, 2017 15:59:14 GMT -5
Yeah, what ever Milo is, I don't see anything coming from him that's helpful or beneficial to anyone but him and his desire for publicity.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 4, 2017 16:58:42 GMT -5
Yeah, what ever Milo is, I don't see anything coming from him that's helpful or beneficial to anyone but him and his desire for publicity. I don't actually like his tactics, either, but I have to say it IS a good thing to our present repressive/progressive college campuses to have him stoke the flames of this free speech discussion. And in today's edgy culture of our youth, I suppose one has to be pretty controversial to be heard over the rest of the noise.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 4, 2017 17:13:28 GMT -5
Yeah, what ever Milo is, I don't see anything coming from him that's helpful or beneficial to anyone but him and his desire for publicity. I don't actually like his tactics, either, but I have to say it IS a good thing to our present repressive/progressive college campuses to have him stoke the flames of this free speech discussion. And in today's edgy culture of our youth, I suppose one has to be pretty controversial to be heard over the rest of the noise. Eh. He's not actually inviting honest debate or free speech. He is testing the limits of free speech and how firmly universities will defend it, maybe, but while I staunchly defend the right of anyone to say (almost) anything, that doesn't mean everything anyone says is worthwhile or merits praise just because it pisses off a lot of people that you like seeing pissed off (and I admit I like seeing college progressives pissed off). Milo's speech doesn't even rise to the level of Ann Coulter's - while she's mostly a rhetorical bomb-thrower, she is at least making political statements and (deliberately) provoking political discussion. She isn't coy about what she believes. Milo is a flaming troll. That's all he is. And I don't believe he or his ilk would hesitate to take away the free speech he enjoys if they had the power to do that to their enemies. So yeah, it's good to have someone come along occasionally to test the limits of what one can get away with, but that doesn't make the flaming jackhole who does it admirable.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 4, 2017 20:19:46 GMT -5
I believe you're all about the effect and not at all about the cause. I believe you are all for supporting a racist speaking in public and totally indifferent to their racism. Summarize that. Sure. I'd summarize that as dishonesty. As I have pointed out several times already, you construct straw man effigies of what people who disagree with you are saying. If I support the right of a racist to speak in public, you dishonestly assert that I am "all for" racists speaking in public. A distinction without a difference. You are "all for" it, because "free speech!" matters more to you than racist speech. Physical assault is already illegal. Being "concerned" about it is kind of superfluous. No one (and that includes ohio, FFS) is saying it shouldn't be illegal to assault someone for speaking. And it's so precious how suddenly you're all concerned about riots, when it's been post after post of how much you loathe whiny regressive liberals. (And, from the post above, enjoy seeing them upset.) Nuance? Is that what we're attributing to Milo fans now? Or is it "nuance" when you trot out the purist free-speech-no-matter-what spiel? Where is the nuance? Ohio's position is quite clear to me. That you want to pigeon-hole him into advocating violence and/or prohibiting free speech is only evidence that your purist view is limiting your understanding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 21:05:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 4, 2017 21:20:15 GMT -5
*chops up Barney for kindling*
*torches thread*
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 4, 2017 22:11:01 GMT -5
A distinction without a difference. You are "all for" it, because "free speech!" matters more to you than racist speech. "All for it" implies endorsement. I am against racist speech. I believe racist speech should be protected by the law. Those two positions are not in conflict. It is not at all clear that ohio is against people being assaulted for speaking. Certainly he has strongly suggested (shuffle shuffle dance) that riots and assaults are a legitimate response to racist speech. Is it precious? And sudden? You are not making sense. I am against riots. I also dislike whiny regressive liberals. And flaming alt-right-friendly trolls. I am capable of holding two ideas in my head at once. No. Nuance is what we are attributing to people who think Milo is a racist troll, and that rioting and assaulting his fans is an illegitimate response to racist trolling. I don't believe in free-speech-no-matter-what. There are established legal limits on free speech, which I generally agree with. "Purist" would be "Anyone should be allowed to say anything, period," which is a position very few people hold. I suspect even Don would probably be able to come up with a few examples of speech that should not be protected. Since his position is clear to you, perhaps you can explain it to me, since my understanding is limited.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 4, 2017 22:14:16 GMT -5
I'm smiting everyone in this thread who failed to quote something I said and follow it up with, "100% agree. BEST POST EVAR!!!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 22:27:53 GMT -5
*chops up Barney for kindling* *torches thread* Violence and arson never solved anything, Christine. I'm smiting everyone in this thread who failed to quote something I said and follow it up with, "100% agree. BEST POST EVAR!!!" 100% agree. BEST POST EVAR!!!
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 4, 2017 22:28:54 GMT -5
'Bout time.
I shall exalt you at 10:39:09.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 4, 2017 22:29:16 GMT -5
*chops up Barney for kindling* *torches thread* Violence and arson never solved anything, Christine. Okay, I am backing down from my purist free speech position. It's okay to chop up Barney.
|
|