Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 22:36:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 4, 2017 22:42:59 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. Meh. You're endorsing the right for people to speak it. Crying about people misinterpreting your view is kind of... whiny? You're saying racists should have the right to speak. That implies they should be heard. Ergo, you are basically endorsing their speech. Not that your position is wrong, but I suggest less hand-wringing over how people are going to take it. But we are not talking about "the law." No one is being carted off to jail for speaking. Milo is not in danger of imprisonment. You are, to the best of my understanding, in favor of racists being allowed platforms. I.e., no group of people should be able to "shout them down," or riot long and hard enough to prevent them from speaking. You think the racists should have their turn speaking. So by "the law" you mention, you think their speech should be legally protected. People shouldn't be able keep them from speaking by speaking over them. Literally, police should come in and prevent riots and interruptions so that racists can have their free speech? I won't speak for ohio, only notice that you've been solely focused on the free speech issue/violence and he's been focused on the racism. You aren't acknowledging his points; why should he acknowledge yours? That's actually three ideas... are you sure? Your positions are devoid of anything empathetic. Do you honestly care about the person who was pepper-sprayed anymore than you care about why some "regressive liberal" is whining or some alt-right troll is trolling? You have "principles," and you hammer them home as the be-all, end-all position. How do any of these events affect you personally? How does anything Milo says affect you personally? Does anything a whining liberal says affect you personally? Why do you fucking care? People who are against Milo generally (presumably) care because he is spewing hate and racism and misogyny. It's noble to stand against these things. Why is your view so superior? No comprendo. Okay. Again with the "legal" issue. If two people are arguing, yelling at the top of their lungs, they're both exercising their right to "free speech." If one person is arguing against ten people, should the one person be given a turn, protected by the law, so he can have his say? Is that what you mean by protected free speech? I've tried. He's tried. *shrug*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 22:44:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 4, 2017 22:54:39 GMT -5
No one touches Mr. Rogers. NO ONE. Or I kill you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 22:55:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 4, 2017 22:57:01 GMT -5
Opty, please don't smite me, I only have 10 karma as it is. SOME people (Christine *cough*) have double that even though they advocate violence against Barney!
*watches video*
*exalts Christine*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 23:02:06 GMT -5
To be fair, I'd have several more exalt points were it not for Opty -- I believe he's taken four away from me, at least.
I can't see why. I'm clearly the mod of peace and love and butterfly kisses.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 4, 2017 23:10:09 GMT -5
Meh. You're endorsing the right for people to speak it. If you don't understand the difference between endorsing someone's right to say something, and endorsing what they say, then I don't know how I could begin to explain what "nuance" means to you. I am not crying, and the only ones misinterpreting my view are you and ohio. As far as I can tell, everyone else is clear on it. If my position is not wrong, then what is your problem with it? I am only "hand-wringing" about people (not just ohio) who seem to think that violence is justified by Ann Coulters and Milo Yiannapoulises speaking. That depends what you mean by "Shout them down." In a public space, sure, they can speak and you can speak back, and if it comes to a shouting match, whoever shouts louder gets heard. It is indeed my position that people should not be allowed to riot to prevent someone from speaking unless, like "endorse," you are using some non-standard meaning for that word. I never said anything about "turns." I am not saying all speech is equal, or that everyone has a right to be heard, or that everyone should get an equal platform. I am saying everyone has a right to speak. If in public, you can choose not to listen, or you can speak back, louder. If in a private venue, you do not have the right to prevent the owner of that venue from providing a platform. You do have a right to express your disapproval of the owner's decision. You do not have a right to use violence (including riots) to express that disapproval. Prevent riots? Definitely. Interruptions? Again, are we talking public or private? People can protest outside. Do they have a right to force their way into a private space (or a semi-public space, such a student union, which a particular group has reserved and paid for the use of according to the normal terms of use for that facility) and prevent use of that space? No. I have acknowledged repeatedly that Milo Yiannoupolis is a racist and he says racist things and he associates with even more racist racists, and I have also said that I do not approve (or endorse) the things he says. What else are you looking for? How do you know? How am I supposed to show empathy in a way you would appreciate? By expressing more outrage at how racist Milo is? Yes, because the person who was pepper-sprayed was assaulted. I have more sympathy for someone who was physically attacked than for someone who was offended by hateful speech. Which does not mean I have no sympathy for someone who was offended by hateful speech. I am considerably less sympathetic to someone who was offended by hateful speech and proceeds to physically assault someone. If we're going to play that game, why do you or ohio fucking care? What are the necessary qualifications for me to have a position? I have never expressed disapproval of people standing against Milo. I have expressed disapproval of people using violence to shut down speech they don't like. My view is superior to that of people who are pro-violence because I think violence is (with rare exceptions - "hateful troll trolling" not being one of them) wrong. What part didn't you understand? No. See above. No, you haven't.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 4, 2017 23:10:48 GMT -5
"All for it" implies endorsement. Meh. You're endorsing the right for people to speak it. Crying about people misinterpreting your view is kind of... whiny? You're saying racists should have the right to speak. That implies they should be heard. Ergo, you are basically endorsing their speech. Not that your position is wrong, but I suggest less hand-wringing over how people are going to take it. But we are not talking about "the law." No one is being carted off to jail for speaking. Milo is not in danger of imprisonment. You are, to the best of my understanding, in favor of racists being allowed platforms. I.e., no group of people should be able to "shout them down," or riot long and hard enough to prevent them from speaking. You think the racists should have their turn speaking. So by "the law" you mention, you think their speech should be legally protected. People shouldn't be able keep them from speaking by speaking over them. Literally, police should come in and prevent riots and interruptions so that racists can have their free speech? I won't speak for ohio, only notice that you've been solely focused on the free speech issue/violence and he's been focused on the racism. You aren't acknowledging his points; why should he acknowledge yours? That's actually three ideas... are you sure? Your positions are devoid of anything empathetic. Do you honestly care about the person who was pepper-sprayed anymore than you care about why some "regressive liberal" is whining or some alt-right troll is trolling? You have "principles," and you hammer them home as the be-all, end-all position. How do any of these events affect you personally? How does anything Milo says affect you personally? Does anything a whining liberal says affect you personally? Why do you fucking care? People who are against Milo generally (presumably) care because he is spewing hate and racism and misogyny. It's noble to stand against these things. Why is your view so superior? No comprendo. Okay. Again with the "legal" issue. If two people are arguing, yelling at the top of their lungs, they're both exercising their right to "free speech." If one person is arguing against ten people, should the one person be given a turn, protected by the law, so he can have his say? Is that what you mean by protected free speech? I've tried. He's tried. *shrug* So, when it comes to speech, basically you're for majority rule. If someone else is saying something that the majority (or, in this case, the assumed majority) dislikes, vehemently dislikes, or thinks is destructive, that person should be compelled by physical force to STFU. According to your logic, early abolitionists in the South should have been compelled, by physical force, to STFU because the Southern Baptists believed that what they were saying was sacrilegious, so much so that even wacko doctors were claiming that "run away slave syndrome" ( Drapetomania) was a mental illness. Because, that's the logical conclusion of your argument. If the majority thinks that something the minority is saying is horrible, then the minority should have no right to say it without fear of physical assault. It's also a recipe for groupthink and echo chamber stupidity. If we never hear what stupid sounds like (because we're never allowed to hear it), then how will we know when we hear something smart?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 4, 2017 23:12:25 GMT -5
To be fair, I'd have several more exalt points were it not for Opty -- I believe he's taken four away from me, at least. I can't see why. I'm clearly the mod of peace and love and butterfly kisses.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 4, 2017 23:20:36 GMT -5
So, when it comes to speech, basically you're for majority rule. If someone else is saying something that the majority (or, in this case, the assumed majority) dislikes, vehemently dislikes, or thinks is destructive, that person should be compelled by physical force to STFU. According to your logic, early abolitionists in the South should have been compelled, by physical force, to STFU because the Southern Baptists believed that what they were saying was sacrilegious, so much so that even wacko doctors were claiming that "run away slave syndrome" ( Drapetomania) was a mental illness. Because, that's the logical conclusion of your argument. If the majority thinks that something the minority is saying is horrible, then the minority should have no right to say it without fear of physical assault. It's also a recipe for groupthink and echo chamber stupidity. If we never hear what stupid sounds like (because we're never allowed to hear it), then how will we know when we hear something smart? So, basically, you're for racists being protected from majority rule, and being given platforms to speak? The historical point is noted, as is the implied slippery slope argument, but at the end of the day... the idea that we need to "protect" racists and trolls due to these points is rather weak, imo. As to hearing what stupid sounds like, we have the internet for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 23:26:19 GMT -5
I never favor rioting, violence, and vandalism. And I'm always in favor of free speech, and fighting words with words (not rocks and mace), and with heartwarming, inspirational videos.
I may have made that point already, but hell, that hasn't stopped anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 4, 2017 23:27:27 GMT -5
I would love to see an actual example of Milo being racist. I've Googled and tried. Coming up empty. 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. 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. I can't take seriously anyone who demands evidence of something they claim unable to find themselves so therefore it must be progressive Left name-calling. and then once the evidence is located and presented to them, their only response is to further enable a hateful racist troll who brags about fucking the brothers of Black women and unleashes his hateful racist troll brothers on a Black woman for the cardinal sin of remaking a 32-year-old movie. In the future, celawson you''d be well-served not to ask for proof of anything only to ignore it. It's a rude waste of time to do the research only to have you double down in your support of a bigoted creep because he's on your side of the political divide. There is nothing "good" about the putrid bile that spews the rank sewer of Milo Yiannopoulous' mouth. Not a single damn thing. Yiannopoulous isn't "edgy." He's a whore. A well-paid whore of the White Alt-Right who knows how to stroke and stimulate the undeveloped minds of immature and frightened White boys to mock, despise and and hate Black people, feminists, liberals and gays who aren't on their side like Good Ol' Milo, Their Special Gay Bro Before Hoes. These immature and frightened White boys eventually will grow up to be immature, frightened White men and maybe they will be the next Dylan Roof. Or the next Donald Trump. Nobody is born a racist. You have to be carefully taught. What is Milo Yiannopoulous teaching these young people who invite him to speak and follow him on social media and harass who he tells them to harass, and hate who he hates? I wonder how tolerant White people would be if there were a flamboyant, charismatic, good looking and social media savvy left-wing Black radical who went around on college campuses proclaiming America is a racially repressive shithole that needs to be set on fire in a 21st Century remake of Nat Turner's Rebellion? There still might be high-falutin' rhetoric of how that sort of hate speech is free speech and it would be. Hate speech is part of the price a democracy pays for free speech. But nobody said you have to give hate speech a forum or that you can't rise up and revolt against it. Y'all need to get ahold of your damn kids. If you're not teaching your children right someone is going to teach them wrong. You really want an asshole like Milo Yiannopoulous to be the guy your kids look up to? The most valuable thing to be gleaned from this thread is it proves how right MLK was when he said, "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
I don't support the violent turn the protests have taken against Yiannopoulous, but I'll be damned if I'll join in with the chorus of condemnation from people with short memories and a poor grasp of who this guy is. it wasn't the Left that made Milo the little monster he is. The Right gets to claim credit for that. He's not a reaction to the "present repressive/progressive college campuses." He's just another hateful hustler hustling gullible suckers on the Right for money and fame and he's laughing all the way to the bank.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 4, 2017 23:29:49 GMT -5
So, basically, you're for racists being protected from majority rule, and being given platforms to speak? The historical point is noted, as is the implied slippery slope argument, but at the end of the day... the idea that we need to "protect" racists and trolls due to these points is rather weak, imo. As to hearing what stupid sounds like, we have the internet for that. I've addressed the "given platforms" issue above, but the slippery slope you dismiss is the entire reason for free speech. To you, it is simply blindingly obvious that racists are bad evil people who should be silenced - if not with violence, then at least with being denied the right to speak, denied a platform, and if someone gives them a platform, with riots and whatever means are necessary to keep them from being heard. Which is fine, as long as we are all in agreement about who the bad evil people are who should be silenced. And that the people with power are on our side. What happens when that's not the case? None of us "free speech purists" supports allowing the KKK to march or allowing Milo Yiannoupolis to give speeches because we think what they have to say is really valuable and the world would be a poorer place without their contributions. We support it because of people who would not allow us (or anyone else) to speak if they decided that what we have to say offends them sufficiently. I have no faith in where that line is for you, and I certainly don't know where it is for every other person who thinks rioting is a fine way to keep bad evil people from being heard.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 4, 2017 23:36:15 GMT -5
*chops up Barney for kindling* *torches thread* Violence and arson never solved anything, Christine. Then you must have read some different history books than the ones I read because there was this thing called the Revolutionary War in it and it was all about violence and arson and worse. There are worse things than violence and arson. One of them is being indifferent and complacent in the face of the evil men do to each other because they think they are better than other men and are willing to go to any length to prove it. Evil cannot always be defeated, but it must always be confronted. Nobody ever changed the world without first realizing something was wrong with the world.
|
|