Ummm yes? Do they go into their meetings and shout and pull fire alarms?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
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.
IE saying their opponents are this guy --- > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVmCwmC5-kQ
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-from-twitter/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
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
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.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?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
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.
You've basically set the stage so Milo is *literally* not allowed to criticize individuals. Try again.
Looks like someone rose to the challenge.
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?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm not asking what you know, I'm asking what you believe.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I believe the left are far nastier than the right in general. I believe it is far more common for those on the left to believe that those on the right are deserving of vitriol, hate and venom - and to believe that they are "righteous" and thus anything goes.
I believe the right in general are more calm which is why it is the extreme loons on the internet (which every side has) that you highlight rather than it being standardised as it can be on the left.
And we keep responding to Lewk's trolling, because most of us DO want to discuss the issues. On the other hand, we spend so much time critiquing Lewk that we can't GET to a good discussion.
Trolling seems to be a commonly used "tactic" (especially on web sites that use click-based advertising/funding), and that's not limited to left/right or liberal/conservative, no matter how hard Lewk tries to say so. Now that we've entered "the Trump Era", maybe we should recognize that trolling is an effective strategy that takes our attention away from the real issues?
If the rules were made when white, male, Christian, heterosexual, property owners were in charge of making those rules (culturally and legislatively) then they're antiquated rules, and deserve to be challenged and changed.
But that's not what your posts say. You claim that people should be judged as individuals, yet you lump everyone into two camps (liberals and everyone else). You claim that Constitutional protections for Free Speech matters, yet you don't distinguish between state-sponsored or private speech, or the nuanced relationship between the two. Hell, you aren't even using the term "banned" in a proper context.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.
The Public Square has a more broad and expansive definition these days, thanks to the internet. I'm wondering why you lambast public schools for limiting speech (for good reasons, like safety/security), but don't have the same criticism for private schools? It's not like Liberty University is even going to invite atheist speakers to address their student body about Human Rights, for example.
Yes but groups like neo-nazis and KKK are regularly considered jokes and pathetic morons by the Right. The far left folks - those who wear shirts with the likeness of terrorists are not routinely distanced by more mainstream liberals. There is a huge double standard. Racism on the right is widely (and justifiably) criticized while racism on the left is enshrined in their platform. (At least in America)
If you are famous you get shit thrown at you. If you don't have the fortitude to deal with it - the internet isn't the place for you. Every single major conservative personality in the media gets a ton of death threats and hate. Almost every single famous black Republican gets racially attacked. No one drove LJ off twitter - this was all a 'oooh look at me and feel sorry for me waaah watch my bad movie or you're sexist AND racist.'