Printable View
Because white people calling black people "niggers" is associated with centuries of white racists calling black people "niggers" out of contempt for their race. When a white person calls a black person a "nigger" it's usually a reliable indicator of racism or criminal stupidity. How have you managed to avoid learning that words have to be judged in context?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
“Like much of the identitarian Left, feminists want to replace old etiquette rules with a new system of politically-driven language policing, controlled by them and predicated on nebulous hurt feelings and speculative "harm." Having long overturned the hectoring, socially-conservative establishment, they now want to assume its place.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
"You have the right to controversial opinions and speech. You have the right to confront and to disagree with, to rebut, and to question opinions that don’t match your own. You have the right to do all of that without being told that you are violating a safe space. "
"Progressives in America today believe that you can’t be racist unless you’re white, or unless you have what they call “prejudice plus power.” This argument, dreamed up in gender and African studies departments, does nothing more than give people an excuse to attack others for their gender, their sexual orientation, or the colour of their skin, in the same way that eugenics gave people an excuse to view others as subhuman nearly a century ago."
"After my speech at DePaul where I was shouted down by Black Lives Matter there were quotes in the press that said I threatened their physical safety and could cause a massacre. They, they said, they said my words could cause a massacre. Well the massacre did come to Chicago but it had nothing to do with me. Over memorial day weekend there were 69 shootings in Chicago, the majority of them were black on black crime. This ended the deadliest month of May in 21 years. This wasn’t a massacre prompted by a gay man’s opinions, it was black men pointing guns at other black men; a subject on which Black Lives Matter has nothing to say. Murder was up 40% during the month and Mayor Emanuel told the press club “We’ve had some success.” I don’t know how he defines failure, probably like other liberals. Shootings are up 50% year over year, the third year of increases in Chicago, and these are not legally guns being used. Cracking down on people’s legal rights to own firearms, cracking down on the 2nd Amendment, which Obama clearly hates, is not going to save lives. And if you doubt that and some idiot in the back says “Where’s your statistics from?” this is the liberal Chicago Tribute, so you can look it up yourself."
"These protests continue to expose the hypocrisy and detachment from reality that runs like a red thread through the liberal establishment in America. Every voice on the Left bleated about how they feared protests and riots by angry Donald Trump supporters if (when) he lost the election, yet it is the leftists themselves destroying property and blocking roads."
"Rule for thee but not for me."Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The goal and hope is that we will live in a true post-racial society where no one would look at skin color and make an assumption on how they behave, what they believe, their work ethic, their values or traditions. Sadly liberals are the ones most responsible for making that reality less and less likely.
So when an LGBTQ person makes remarks about LGBTQ people it may be taken in a different context too. Same principle applied consistently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
No, but it does show that there are different standards amongst individuals. Just because you are offended is not the rule either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I've listened to many of his speeches, commentaries, and interviews. I don't find him offensive. I think he's wrong on a couple of points, but I don't look to shut up people I disagree with.
Don't bother, the goal posts will get moved again.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I did, however, acknowledge my mistake and apologise for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
This may come as a shock to both you and Milo, but if racist speech is protected free speech then "you're violating a safe space" or, probably more accurately, "You need to shut the fuck up, you racist sack of garbage" is also protected free speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Tell me, if screaming abuse at feminists and other progressives on social media until they leave the platform in disgust or despair isn't "trying to shut people up", then what is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valden Rath
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...s_to_turn.htmlQuote:
And then there was a breaking point where he said the Constitution and conservatism were done, and it was going to be replaced by this new rising alt-right movement that didn’t care about the Constitution—you’re cucks, you’re losers, all the rest of this stuff. And then it gradually got worse, to the point where, when my second kid was born in May, Milo—who pretends that he’s not alt-right—sent a tweet at me with a picture of a black kid. Because the way that this works is that if you are not alt-right, if you’re anti-Trump, then according to the alt-right you must be what they call a “cuck”—for those who don’t follow this sort of stuff—because you have two brain cells to rub together. Cuck, according to the alt-right, means that you’re a white person who wants to watch his wife have sex with a black man, right? Because you’re poisoning the racial stock of the United States, so you want your own racial stock “poisoned.” I always found the whole thing bewildering. I’m not interested in my wife having sex with a man of any race; I’m not sure why a black guy would be significantly worse, just overall! It seems pretty terrible all the way through.
Correct on the fist part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Second part, nope. They can block his fag ass. Ignore him, or better yet, see your first answer above.
So, what were you referring to you talked about trying to shut people up?
Seriously?
Have you seen any of the lunacy here in the States were colleges are banning people like Milo, Ben Shapiro, and 2 wave feminists? And if the dint get banned, the 'tolerant' left pull fire alarms, or disrupt the speech in the auditorium so those who want to here the discussion can't.
That's just a taste of shutting people up.
Exactly. Giving as good as you get is one thing, trying to ban certain points of view is completely different.
That's a strawman. No one is banning any points of view. What is being banned is harassment and encouragement to violence.
"Safe spaces" is about banning points of view, as is "no platform" etc
Sorry, what? You think college should be compelled to give Milo et al a platform to speak? I've never been invited to speak at a university, are my free speech rights being violated?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
But what is a space space, other than an alt-right bogey man?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So, it's one room on campus where you're not allowed to go "god hates fags lol" or whatever, and that's some unconscionable violation of free speech?Quote:
Originally Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space
"I must be able to follow women & minorities everywhere and shout at them, or else my free speech rights are being violated"
You are wrong. It's not about a room, nobody would object to that, it's about banning speech from the entire campus.
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...k-universities
Ok, so you clearly misread that article quite badly.
No speech was 'banned', the organiser decided to pull the plug after he heard there was going to be a picket. It wasn't anything to do with the campus as a whole or even university authorities, it was something organised by the feminist society and the comedy club or whatever.
To be clear, I think "criminalize people who use sex workers - yay or nay" is something reasonable people really ought be able to disagree about and I find picketing a comedy show over the issue outright bizarre, but picketing is an expression of free speech even if it's over something really dumb.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I'm am not saying a college campus should be forced to host Milo (as an example) but when one IS invited by a club/group, if not told to fuck off by the administration, then other groups actually disrupt the activity, not just protest, come in and disrupt.
And this is somehow different to Milo himself encouraging his supporters to harass his opponents, thereby silencing them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Ummm yes? Do they go into their meetings and shout and pull fire alarms?
I obviously can't speak for everyone who uses the term but I always understood it to be an attack on the masculinity of the liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
IE saying their opponents are this guy --- > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVmCwmC5-kQ
Can you provide a specific quote where he told someone to harass his opponents?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-from-twitter/Quote:
Yiannopoulos often used his popular Twitter account to identify and mock enemies of the “alt-right,” a grouping of anti-politically-correct die-hards, trolls and racist meme lords who have united around their common liberal targets.
On Monday, Yiannopoulos started making fun of Jones, particularly her response to the racist abuse she was getting. “EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS,” one tweet read. another called Jones “barely literate.” Later, he shared faked screenshots that made it appear as if Jones were making profane and offensive postings.
Twitter didn’t say exactly why it banned Yiannopoulos, only telling the Breitbart writer that he was permanently banned for a violation of the company’s rules “prohibiting participating in or inciting targeted abuse of individuals.” Yiannopoulos called the suspension “cowardly.”
That's his shtick. He knows his followers are like fascist hounds, ready to attack (including making death threats) against anyone he treats as a target. He knows full well what the result is. He encourages that response. Twitter wisened up to his tactics. Anyone with half a brain would as well.
And more on him being a troll with no purpose other than to rile people up:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news...mps-little-boy
I'm still waiting for a quote that says he told people to go harass someone. :|
Article after article takes tweets he didn't post and then attributes to it being his fault because... internet logic. If Sean Hannity does an expose on local teacher's union and said teacher's union gets hate mail and angry tweets sent their way is it Sean's fault?
If Sean Hannity uses his platform to publicly go after inconsequential individuals who dared criticize him knowing that it leads to death threats every single time, then yes, he gets some of the blame.
Yes. Does this notion offend you? It's something most people have learned by the time they begin elementary school: there are some things that you can say to some people but not others. For example, if I walk into my bedroom and see my wife looking all sexy I might say "hey there sexy thing" and that might be okay because we're both okay with that, but if I were to say that to a complete stranger while shopping for groceries, or say it to a patient, it would be grossly inappropriate or even wrong. Friends might say all sorts of shit to one another. A woman might eg. use the term "bitch" in a friendly and affectionate way in reference to her best female friend while they're hanging out enjoying each other's company, but if she uses that term to describe her female boss while they're both at work that might be inappropriate or at least unwise. Whether or not a word is okay to use depends not only on the word and its historical context but also on how the word is being used as well as on the people involved. It depends especially on whether or not all parties involved agree on whether or not the word is okay. These are basic concepts in human social interaction that are intuitively understood by anyone who isn't an idiot who was poorly raised, in social isolation--by morons--to become a complete savage. Since that likely does not apply to you I can only assume your stupidity is by choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Sure, this is like curing cancer by acting like cancer doesn't exist. Or like fighting Islamic extremism and terrorism by pretending those things don't exist. The goal and hope is that we will live in a true utopia where no-one would get cancer or kill other people due to extremist beliefs.Quote:
The goal and hope is that we will live in a true post-racial society where no one would look at skin color and make an assumption on how they behave, what they believe, their work ethic, their values or traditions. Sadly liberals are the ones most responsible for making that reality less and less likely.
Yup, that's nearly as dumb as your naïve position on racism.
Granted there are people who are subjected to racism who have difficulties maintaining their composure and not seeing things that happen to them as being expressions of racism, but that's understandable even when it can be counter-productive. People who're subjected to racism can become more sensitive to such things rather than becoming less sensitive. It's more understandable, for example, than Breitbart-blowing morons on the internet who see the "liberal" bogeyman behind their every real and imagined social problem and peeve.
As always, the things you (Lewk) say about others reflect more poorly on you than on the people you're targeting. But carry on embarrassing yourself if that's your thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
This is only clever until you realize the tensions and hierarchies that exist within the groups described by the "LGBTQ" label (with narcissistic gay men at the top and transgender women near the bottom, with some gay and lesbian people calling for their exclusion from the collective label) and until you realize that, just because you can claim to be a member of a group, it doesn't mean you get carte blanche to deliberately be a fucking asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
In the post you were replying to, I didn't only say that Chris Rock was black, I also said that he was a talented comedian who is known (or believed) to care deeply about the issues he jokes about. He uses his talent to address important and difficult issues from the perspective of someone who's been directly affected by those issues, so he has credibility and respect. When joking about black people, he doesn't punch down in order to satisfy some deep-seated and utterly base need to hurt others.
Milo's free to call gay men "fags" if he likes. Gay people often do, and accept the label when its used amongst themselves. If you, however, were to call a random person a "fag", that might be different. If it's used as a slur, it's different. When an obnoxious and hate-filled gay man implicitly beats down on transgender women who have difficulties "passing", and fans the flames of harrassment, that's different.
If you're going to attend a family event, and your sister would like to invite a friend who spends a lot of time telling others you're a disgusting, ugly, fat cuckold fag, and wants to have an open and serious conversation about your removal from the party or your exclusion from the family, or incites his friends to harrass you and spread falsehoods about you, or is just generally a complete shithead... I believe that friend would not be welcome and your sister might get a talking-to. Perhaps that may not be the case in your family, but in most families it wouldn't be kosher and a responsible and loving parent would take issue with your sister's poor judgement. You don't do that to people you care about. Assholes can say whatever they like in their own homes, but there's no reason to give them an opportunity to do so in your home. There are limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You might argue that the limits don't apply because you have no right to feel safe on a university campus where you spend most of your time (maybe even where you live); that there are no bonds of fraternity or obligation between students or between students and university officials; that a Muslim, black or transgender person is not your brother or sister. I believe many universities would disagree with you.
Of course you don't find him offensive. He hasn't said anything that would be offensive to you. You haven't suffered in the least due to his behavior, or the behavior of those he leads or the actions of those he represents. But you live in a world full of other people. Are you saying you can't understand why others would take issue with him even though you, personally, have no problems with him? Are you that self-centered?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Hence why I like Chris Rock and don't like Milo. But I don't think anybody was debating whether Milo is a nasty jerk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The difference is that a university campus is not an event. There was on my campus tens of thousands of people, dozens of buildings and hundreds if not thousands of rooms. It was mistakenly claimed earlier that a "safe space" was one room where you could go to and avoid this speech, when the exact opposite is the case. These "safe space" bigots want to shut down conversations they don't like on the entire campus. To ban people and views from the entire campus.Quote:
If you're going to attend a family event, and your sister would like to invite a friend who spends a lot of time telling others you're a disgusting, ugly, fat cuckold fag, and wants to have an open and serious conversation about your removal from the party or your exclusion from the family, or incites his friends to harrass you and spread falsehoods about you, or is just generally a complete shithead... I believe that friend would not be welcome and your sister might get a talking-to. Perhaps that may not be the case in your family, but in most families it wouldn't be kosher and a responsible and loving parent would take issue with your sister's poor judgement. You don't do that to people you care about. Assholes can say whatever they like in their own homes, but there's no reason to give them an opportunity to do so in your home. There are limits.
You might argue that the limits don't apply because you have no right to feel safe on a university campus where you spend most of your time (maybe even where you live); that there are no bonds of fraternity or obligation between students or between students and university officials; that a Muslim, black or transgender person is not your brother or sister. I believe many universities would disagree with you.
My sister in law is friends with someone my wife and I can't stand. She's free to invite him over to events and I'm free to not attend those events, but we're meet up with her at other times. I don't try and prevent her from inviting her friend to any of her events. These safe space morons want to shut down conversations that are happening in one room on campus rather than simply not going into that room and attending every other room bar that one. No that is not right. Universities should be exactly the sort of space where you're free to say the unsayable.
No Aimless, I'm not that self centered. When I do run across people that piss me off, I stop associating (tweets, facebook, in person...whatever) with them. I don't ask someone in power to muffle them.
See Rands point on safe spaces. Colleges here want the whole place as a safe space...and MAYBE have a free speech zone.
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Death threats = free speechQuote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
fucking with the lights = not free speech
Got it.
Bull shit. Simply because someone is famous doesn't mean they can't criticize people. Furthermore the death threats aren't credible (its the internet) and may very well be other liberals doing it so they can paint conservatives as mean fascists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You've basically set the stage so Milo is *literally* not allowed to criticize individuals. Try again.
Basically if you are famous you've gotten death threats. Sean, Glenn, Rush all of them get death threats. No one is suggesting that death threats are OK but at the same time *if you aren't the one making the threats* you don't deserve any culpability for it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Could you be more of a caricature? :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Considering it happens way too regularly what do you expect?
Looks like someone rose to the challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
How often do you believe "liberals" systematically harrass other liberals eg. using death-threats and the like compared to how often self-identified "conservatives" such as the antisocial fuckwits that make up 90% of Milo's followers do the same?
It is literally impossible to tell. And you have the leftist people who make up false claims about hate crimes to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
How often do you believe "liberals" systematically harrass other liberals eg. using death-threats and the like compared to how often self-identified "conservatives" such as the antisocial fuckwits that make up 90% of Milo's followers do the same?
Who knows? Do you?
I'm not asking what you know, I'm asking what you believe.