Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 274

Thread: Liberals All Over the World Hate Free Speech

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Are you being deliberately obtuse?

    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?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #62
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Ummm yes? Do they go into their meetings and shout and pull fire alarms?
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    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

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    And this is somehow different to Milo himself encouraging his supporters to harass his opponents, thereby silencing them?
    Can you provide a specific quote where he told someone to harass his opponents?

  5. #65
    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.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-from-twitter/

    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

  6. #66
    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?

  7. #67
    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

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    "Rule for thee but not for me."
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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
    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 RandBlade View Post
    So when an LGBTQ person makes remarks about LGBTQ people it may be taken in a different context too. Same principle applied consistently.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Exactly. Giving as good as you get is one thing, trying to ban certain points of view is completely 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    No, but it does show that there are different standards amongst individuals. Just because you are offended is not the rule either.

    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.
    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 Steely Glint View Post
    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.

    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 Loki View Post
    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.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  10. #70
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    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

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Are you being deliberately obtuse?

    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.
    Death threats = free speech
    fucking with the lights = not free speech

    Got it.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    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.
    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.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Death threats = free speech
    fucking with the lights = not free speech

    Got it.
    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.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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.
    Could you be more of a caricature?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  15. #75
    Considering it happens way too regularly what do you expect?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Considering it happens way too regularly what do you expect?
    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."

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    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?
    It is literally impossible to tell. And you have the leftist people who make up false claims about hate crimes to blame.

  18. #78
    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."

  19. #79
    Who knows? Do you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  20. #80
    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."

  21. #81
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    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?
    How is this really relevant? Everyone on YouTube, and other social media that has a real presence gets death threats. The 'anonymous' nature of it lets any idiot, left and right, spew their stupidity.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  22. #82
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Death threats = free speech
    fucking with the lights = not free speech

    Got it.
    It appears you are not really interested in an honest discussion.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  23. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I'm not asking what you know, I'm asking what you believe.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  24. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    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
    Usually because they are. Read neo-nazis, NF, KKK and other right wing groups, deserving of as much vitriol, hate and venom as can be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    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.
    So how many of the people who drove LJ off of Twitter do you believe were liberal leftists pretending to be alt-right cockbags? Over 50%? 80%?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  26. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    ....Just like it's kinda of said that these half-dozen troll threads Lewk starts every week get responses as if they were actual good faith attempts to have a discussion.
    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?





    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    "Rule for thee but not for me."
    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.

    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.
    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 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.

  27. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    Usually because they are. Read neo-nazis, NF, KKK and other right wing groups, deserving of as much vitriol, hate and venom as can be.
    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)

  28. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    So how many of the people who drove LJ off of Twitter do you believe were liberal leftists pretending to be alt-right cockbags? Over 50%? 80%?
    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.'

  29. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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)
    Prove it.

  30. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Prove it.
    Strike that. Your trolling is only effective to a certain point, and we should refuse to engage (even though you make it easy).

    If you really want to discuss racism, then we should tackle it head on. No more excuses for the privileged white class.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •