ERotIC said:

I figured, and I'm not trying to diminish what it's clearly code for, just that that specific term isn't being commonly used outside of this place, AFAIK.

Click to expand...

ERotIC said:

I figured, and I'm not trying to diminish what it's clearly code for, just that that specific term isn't being commonly used outside of this place, AFAIK.

Click to expand...

Mr.Shrugglesツ;239090199 said:

Can we talk about unbanning Bboy AJ?

Click to expand...

BennyBlanco said:

his undying hatred for the 3.5mm headphone jack needs to be heard

Click to expand...

ERotIC said:

I figured, and I'm not trying to diminish what it's clearly code for, just that that specific term isn't being commonly used outside of this place, AFAIK.

Click to expand...

EviLore said:

This is all very reminiscent of what happened to off-topic for a couple months post-election. Of course, that madness turned out to be directly induced through sabotage by a now-former admin secretly banning *hundreds* of members totally outside of any justifiable grounds (not that any attempt at justification was made to begin with, being undisclosed and undocumented bans) in some 85-90% of each of those bans that were subsequently investigated after we became aware of the incident.

NeoGAF is a discussion forum; the whole point is to disseminate information and debate it, on civil terms, in an atmosphere that encourages healthy skepticism, fact-checking and credible sourcing, challenging preexisting worldviews and talking points and biases by providing a platform for a diverse audience to contribute, etc. And yes, the site does lean progressive, because it is inclusive and evidence-based and intolerant of hate speech. But while there are core values associated with this place, there's no point in discussion without providing a framework that allows for multiple perspectives to engage with each other.

I mention all this because, particularly for those couple months I mentioned when anyone trying to operate in good faith within the aforementioned parameters I've set up for this place ended up sniped en masse, Off-Topic suddenly became unrecognizable to me some 15 or 16 years after we set this side of the forum up. The place kinda turned into what this Evergreen outcome sounds like: with everyone who tried to contribute to civil discourse systematically thrown down the well, the remaining members either stayed silent or radicalized up, and we were left with a squad of polarized "progressives" unwilling to have a conversation with anyone about issues, repeating the same talking points in every thread to each other in a self-righteous echo chamber, newly confident that any non-conformity would be driven out or otherwise made to disappear. This was not just ostracizing people attempting to challenge reductive, exclusionary "with us or against us" polarized rhetoric, either (and that should absolutely be challenged), but also anyone even trying to have a conversation within that radicalized bubble. People were driven out, character assassinated, labeled traitor for "not sounding angry enough," or for not being entirely on board with ostracizing someone else for the same reasons.

There's nothing righteous, informed, or progressive about that. It's just a sanctimonious, vitriolic, self-destructive circle jerk that drives out the kind of people most valuable to discussion: not the "retweet my Side and quote it in yells or else you're The Enemy" people, but the people engaging on each individual issue with critical thought and an open mind, willingness and capacity to perform independent investigation into the materials initially presented, come to an independent conclusion and present it, and to allow the same from folks who have made similar effort but with different credible sources or different justifiable conclusions than your own.

That's the sort of thing I'm seeing here. Professor's conclusions about the event that prompted the protests should certainly be challenged, but he did justify his positions reasonably and stay civil throughout the argument he presented. Yeah, that annual event change-up is a complicated issue, as we can see by all the folks here struggling with the right and wrong of it, so it's absolutely a legitimate topic for an academic debate. And that's all he did: debate the merits of it and the campus ethics of an exclusionary event with what he felt were undercurrents of pressure to comply or end up branded a racist/traitor/whatever.

...and now we're seeing exactly that, with an aggressive push for his removal, threats against him, and even an order issued that the chief of campus police not take measures to ensure the professor's safety on campus.

Smear campaign articles posted earlier here that attribute *swastikas* being spraypainted by some apparent alt-right dickwads who have involved themselves here, and doxxing alleged to have occurred at some point along the way by third parties unrelated to the professor (alt-right again apparently latching onto this), all somehow ultimately being the the fault of this *progressive activist Jewish professor* (who as far as I can tell has sound credentials, and who one of his long-time students personally vouched for in this thread as someone who wouldn't have a disingenuous, racially motivated angle with this thing) for daring to break formation and have an academic conversation that scrutinized something on "the progressive side" that day.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

World isn't binary, folks. Hyper-partisan, radical, binary, "us or them" environments with constant purity tests demanding adherence to the pre-established talking point of the hour breeds ignorance, intolerance, hate, and self-destruction.

This is why we talk about things. This is why diversity of background/ethnicity/orientation/culture is important within an environment like a campus or a message board: not just as an outcome better representing the diversity of the population it's pulling its membership body from, but critically for the diversity of perspective that results from that intense microcosm you've built, and the insight and nuance of thought it can bring to each participant when they share an appropriately moderated space and each have a fair voice.

That's why we talk about things.

Click to expand...

Opto said:

Oh no, leftwing student activists got a little overzealous. It's weird how there's so many articles about the "fractured left" yet we didn't elect a man child into the highest office nor keep him afloat by electing sniveling coward senators

Click to expand...

BlizzKrut said:

Couldn't have said it better myself, there are a lot of members on the forum that have this "it's either us or them" mentality, and won't for the life of them open their minds to other civilized opinion.

Click to expand...

EviLore said:

This is all very reminiscent of what happened to off-topic for a couple months post-election. Of course, that madness turned out to be directly induced through sabotage by a now-former admin secretly banning *hundreds* of members totally outside of any justifiable grounds (not that any attempt at justification was made to begin with, being undisclosed and undocumented bans) in some 85-90% of each of those bans that were subsequently investigated after we became aware of the incident.

NeoGAF is a discussion forum; the whole point is to disseminate information and debate it, on civil terms, in an atmosphere that encourages healthy skepticism, fact-checking and credible sourcing, challenging preexisting worldviews and talking points and biases by providing a platform for a diverse audience to contribute, etc. And yes, the site does lean progressive, because it is inclusive and evidence-based and intolerant of hate speech. But while there are core values associated with this place, there's no point in discussion without providing a framework that allows for multiple perspectives to engage with each other.

I mention all this because, particularly for those couple months I mentioned when anyone trying to operate in good faith within the aforementioned parameters I've set up for this place ended up sniped en masse, Off-Topic suddenly became unrecognizable to me some 15 or 16 years after we set this side of the forum up. The place kinda turned into what this Evergreen outcome sounds like: with everyone who tried to contribute to civil discourse systematically thrown down the well, the remaining members either stayed silent or radicalized up, and we were left with a squad of polarized "progressives" unwilling to have a conversation with anyone about issues, repeating the same talking points in every thread to each other in a self-righteous echo chamber, newly confident that any non-conformity would be driven out or otherwise made to disappear. This was not just ostracizing people attempting to challenge reductive, exclusionary "with us or against us" polarized rhetoric, either (and that should absolutely be challenged), but also anyone even trying to have a conversation within that radicalized bubble. People were driven out, character assassinated, labeled traitor for "not sounding angry enough," or for not being entirely on board with ostracizing someone else for the same reasons.

There's nothing righteous, informed, or progressive about that. It's just a sanctimonious, vitriolic, self-destructive circle jerk that drives out the kind of people most valuable to discussion: not the "retweet my Side and quote it in yells or else you're The Enemy" people, but the people engaging on each individual issue with critical thought and an open mind, willingness and capacity to perform independent investigation into the materials initially presented, come to an independent conclusion and present it, and to allow the same from folks who have made similar effort but with different credible sources or different justifiable conclusions than your own.

That's the sort of thing I'm seeing here. Professor's conclusions about the event that prompted the protests should certainly be challenged, but he did justify his positions reasonably and stay civil throughout the argument he presented. Yeah, that annual event change-up is a complicated issue, as we can see by all the folks here struggling with the right and wrong of it, so it's absolutely a legitimate topic for an academic debate. And that's all he did: debate the merits of it and the campus ethics of an exclusionary event with what he felt were undercurrents of pressure to comply or end up branded a racist/traitor/whatever.

...and now we're seeing exactly that, with an aggressive push for his removal, threats against him, and even an order issued that the chief of campus police not take measures to ensure the professor's safety on campus.

Smear campaign articles posted earlier here that attribute *swastikas* being spraypainted by some apparent alt-right dickwads who have involved themselves here, and doxxing alleged to have occurred at some point along the way by third parties unrelated to the professor (alt-right again apparently latching onto this), all somehow ultimately being the the fault of this *progressive activist Jewish professor* (who as far as I can tell has sound credentials, and who one of his long-time students personally vouched for in this thread as someone who wouldn't have a disingenuous, racially motivated angle with this thing) for daring to break formation and have an academic conversation that scrutinized something on "the progressive side" that day.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

World isn't binary, folks. Hyper-partisan, radical, binary, "us or them" environments with constant purity tests demanding adherence to the pre-established talking point of the hour breeds ignorance, intolerance, hate, and self-destruction.

This is why we talk about things. This is why diversity of background/ethnicity/orientation/culture is important within an environment like a campus or a message board: not just as an outcome better representing the diversity of the population it's pulling its membership body from, but critically for the diversity of perspective that results from that intense microcosm you've built, and the insight and nuance of thought it can bring to each participant when they share an appropriately moderated space and each have a fair voice.

That's why we talk about things.

Click to expand...

Arnie said:

Good post and I hope there's a similarly reasonable explanation for the systematic and entirely unnecessary purging of Football GAF.

Click to expand...

ERotIC said:

Maybe it's because I came from a forum where anything less than death threats was considered fair game, but it does appear that there exists a bubble to discourse here.

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

Claiming "diet racism" is something made up in order to be self-righteous undermines your entire argument. There are plenty of obnoxious self-righteous behaviors on the left. That concept isn't one of them.

Click to expand...

EviLore said:

Fuck off, cunt.

^ Footie-GAF's collective response to the myriad requests from NeoGAF moderation to abide by the rules here. There's your explanation. Don't take that post you're quoting as having anything whatsoever to do with a right to act as you please on someone else's private website without consequence. If you have no interest in respecting the ToS or the administration's instructions, point your browser elsewhere or it'll be sorted out from the other end. This isn't Twitter or Reddit. There are expectations for you as a participant -- many, in fact -- and this is disclosed to you when you apply for membership.

Click to expand...

EviLore said:

NeoGAF is a discussion forum; the whole point is to disseminate information and debate it, on civil terms, in an atmosphere that encourages healthy skepticism, fact-checking and credible sourcing, challenging preexisting worldviews and talking points and biases by providing a platform for a diverse audience to contribute, etc. And yes, the site does lean progressive, because it is inclusive and evidence-based and intolerant of hate speech. But while there are core values associated with this place, there's no point in discussion without providing a framework that allows for multiple perspectives to engage with each other.

Click to expand...

PizzaFace said:

I totally agree

...but then why does Modbot exist?

Click to expand...

Trokil said:

You still do get death threats, but they are sent as a PM.

Click to expand...

Paros has taught at Evergreen for about a decade.

In his letter, he described the controversy on campus as being complicated by “a collection of professors that are so blinded by their advocacy, that they cannot fathom different viewpoints.” He wrote that “the college is now contributing to the vilification, paranoia and irrational rhetoric that fuels hatred and violence.”

Paros also indicated that other people on campus support Weinstein, but they’re afraid of being labeled bigots. He said he met a student recently who was angry that she was told to shut up at a student rally, based on her skin color.

“She did not comply and was called a racist,” Paros wrote. “I asked her if this bothered her. She said, ‘No, because I am not a racist.’”

He urged other faculty to stand up and speak out.


“To the faculty, too afraid to speak out: I urge you to walk toward the fire,” he wrote. “After all, if this brave student is a bigot, then I guess I am too. They are just words. You will not lose your job, but you might lose your dignity.”

Click to expand...

Ekai said:

Going to be honest. Speaking as a minority, I don't see how debates on my merits to basic rights as a human being can be considered "a mere difference in 'civil' opinion". There's a difference between healthy debate, which would be more than fine, and acting like such approaches on how basic human rights are treated is simply a "different point of view". The first is fine. The later is so incredibly disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and insulting. It doesn't even begin to brooch a civil opinion or even welcomes open discourse when the opposition is literally arguing to limit my rights as a human being. Basically, opposing views are fine. But in some respects, it's incredibly questionable.

That's all I really have to say on the matter.

Click to expand...

EviLore said:

This is all very reminiscent of what happened to off-topic for a couple months post-election. Of course, that madness turned out to be directly induced through sabotage by a now-former admin secretly banning *hundreds* of members totally outside of any justifiable grounds (not that any attempt at justification was made to begin with, being undisclosed and undocumented bans) in some 85-90% of each of those bans that were subsequently investigated after we became aware of the incident.

NeoGAF is a discussion forum; the whole point is to disseminate information and debate it, on civil terms, in an atmosphere that encourages healthy skepticism, fact-checking and credible sourcing, challenging preexisting worldviews and talking points and biases by providing a platform for a diverse audience to contribute, etc. And yes, the site does lean progressive, because it is inclusive and evidence-based and intolerant of hate speech. But while there are core values associated with this place, there's no point in discussion without providing a framework that allows for multiple perspectives to engage with each other.

I mention all this because, particularly for those couple months I mentioned when anyone trying to operate in good faith within the aforementioned parameters I've set up for this place ended up sniped en masse, Off-Topic suddenly became unrecognizable to me some 15 or 16 years after we set this side of the forum up. The place kinda turned into what this Evergreen outcome sounds like: with everyone who tried to contribute to civil discourse systematically thrown down the well, the remaining members either stayed silent or radicalized up, and we were left with a squad of polarized "progressives" unwilling to have a conversation with anyone about issues, repeating the same talking points in every thread to each other in a self-righteous echo chamber, newly confident that any non-conformity would be driven out or otherwise made to disappear. This was not just ostracizing people attempting to challenge reductive, exclusionary "with us or against us" polarized rhetoric, either (and that should absolutely be challenged), but also anyone even trying to have a conversation within that radicalized bubble. People were driven out, character assassinated, labeled traitor for "not sounding angry enough," or for not being entirely on board with ostracizing someone else for the same reasons.

There's nothing righteous, informed, or progressive about that. It's just a sanctimonious, vitriolic, self-destructive circle jerk that drives out the kind of people most valuable to discussion: not the "retweet my Side and quote it in yells or else you're The Enemy" people, but the people engaging on each individual issue with critical thought and an open mind, willingness and capacity to perform independent investigation into the materials initially presented, come to an independent conclusion and present it, and to allow the same from folks who have made similar effort but with different credible sources or different justifiable conclusions than your own.

That's the sort of thing I'm seeing here. Professor's conclusions about the event that prompted the protests should certainly be challenged, but he did justify his positions reasonably and stay civil throughout the argument he presented. Yeah, that annual event change-up is a complicated issue, as we can see by all the folks here struggling with the right and wrong of it, so it's absolutely a legitimate topic for an academic debate. And that's all he did: debate the merits of it and the campus ethics of an exclusionary event with what he felt were undercurrents of pressure to comply or end up branded a racist/traitor/whatever.

...and now we're seeing exactly that, with an aggressive push for his removal, threats against him, and even an order issued that the chief of campus police not take measures to ensure the professor's safety on campus.

Smear campaign articles posted earlier here that attribute *swastikas* being spraypainted by some apparent alt-right dickwads who have involved themselves here, and doxxing alleged to have occurred at some point along the way by third parties unrelated to the professor (alt-right again apparently latching onto this), all somehow ultimately being the the fault of this *progressive activist Jewish professor* (who as far as I can tell has sound credentials, and who one of his long-time students personally vouched for in this thread as someone who wouldn't have a disingenuous, racially motivated angle with this thing) for daring to break formation and have an academic conversation that scrutinized something on "the progressive side" that day.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

World isn't binary, folks. Hyper-partisan, radical, binary, "us or them" environments with constant purity tests demanding adherence to the pre-established talking point of the hour breeds ignorance, intolerance, hate, and self-destruction.

This is why we talk about things. This is why diversity of background/ethnicity/orientation/culture is important within an environment like a campus or a message board: not just as an outcome better representing the diversity of the population it's pulling its membership body from, but critically for the diversity of perspective that results from that intense microcosm you've built, and the insight and nuance of thought it can bring to each participant when they share an appropriately moderated space and each have a fair voice.

That's why we talk about things.

Click to expand...

EviLore said:

This is all very reminiscent of what happened to off-topic for a couple months post-election. Of course, that madness turned out to be directly induced through sabotage by a now-former admin secretly banning *hundreds* of members totally outside of any justifiable grounds (not that any attempt at justification was made to begin with, being undisclosed and undocumented bans) in some 85-90% of each of those bans that were subsequently investigated after we became aware of the incident.

Click to expand...

Violet_0 said:

that's kinda crazy. I just realized who we're talking about :/

Click to expand...

akira28 said:

lol, got his attention huh.

too bad it triggered his "if then...racism" subroutines.



edit: the kids in the video though...no. that operation I wouldn't sanction.

Click to expand...

EviLore said:

This is all very reminiscent of what happened to off-topic for a couple months post-election. Of course, that madness turned out to be directly induced through sabotage by a now-former admin secretly banning *hundreds* of members totally outside of any justifiable grounds (not that any attempt at justification was made to begin with, being undisclosed and undocumented bans) in some 85-90% of each of those bans that were subsequently investigated after we became aware of the incident.

NeoGAF is a discussion forum; the whole point is to disseminate information and debate it, on civil terms, in an atmosphere that encourages healthy skepticism, fact-checking and credible sourcing, challenging preexisting worldviews and talking points and biases by providing a platform for a diverse audience to contribute, etc. And yes, the site does lean progressive, because it is inclusive and evidence-based and intolerant of hate speech. But while there are core values associated with this place, there's no point in discussion without providing a framework that allows for multiple perspectives to engage with each other.

I mention all this because, particularly for those couple months I mentioned when anyone trying to operate in good faith within the aforementioned parameters I've set up for this place ended up sniped en masse, Off-Topic suddenly became unrecognizable to me some 15 or 16 years after we set this side of the forum up. The place kinda turned into what this Evergreen outcome sounds like: with everyone who tried to contribute to civil discourse systematically thrown down the well, the remaining members either stayed silent or radicalized up, and we were left with a squad of polarized "progressives" unwilling to have a conversation with anyone about issues, repeating the same talking points in every thread to each other in a self-righteous echo chamber, newly confident that any non-conformity would be driven out or otherwise made to disappear. This was not just ostracizing people attempting to challenge reductive, exclusionary "with us or against us" polarized rhetoric, either (and that should absolutely be challenged), but also anyone even trying to have a conversation within that radicalized bubble. People were driven out, character assassinated, labeled traitor for "not sounding angry enough," or for not being entirely on board with ostracizing someone else for the same reasons.

There's nothing righteous, informed, or progressive about that. It's just a sanctimonious, vitriolic, self-destructive circle jerk that drives out the kind of people most valuable to discussion: not the "retweet my Side and quote it in yells or else you're The Enemy" people, but the people engaging on each individual issue with critical thought and an open mind, willingness and capacity to perform independent investigation into the materials initially presented, come to an independent conclusion and present it, and to allow the same from folks who have made similar effort but with different credible sources or different justifiable conclusions than your own.

That's the sort of thing I'm seeing here. Professor's conclusions about the event that prompted the protests should certainly be challenged, but he did justify his positions reasonably and stay civil throughout the argument he presented. Yeah, that annual event change-up is a complicated issue, as we can see by all the folks here struggling with the right and wrong of it, so it's absolutely a legitimate topic for an academic debate. And that's all he did: debate the merits of it and the campus ethics of an exclusionary event with what he felt were undercurrents of pressure to comply or end up branded a racist/traitor/whatever.

...and now we're seeing exactly that, with an aggressive push for his removal, threats against him, and even an order issued that the chief of campus police not take measures to ensure the professor's safety on campus.

Smear campaign articles posted earlier here that attribute *swastikas* being spraypainted by some apparent alt-right dickwads who have involved themselves here, and doxxing alleged to have occurred at some point along the way by third parties unrelated to the professor (alt-right again apparently latching onto this), all somehow ultimately being the the fault of this *progressive activist Jewish professor* (who as far as I can tell has sound credentials, and who one of his long-time students personally vouched for in this thread as someone who wouldn't have a disingenuous, racially motivated angle with this thing) for daring to break formation and have an academic conversation that scrutinized something on "the progressive side" that day.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

World isn't binary, folks. Hyper-partisan, radical, binary, "us or them" environments with constant purity tests demanding adherence to the pre-established talking point of the hour breeds ignorance, intolerance, hate, and self-destruction.

This is why we talk about things. This is why diversity of background/ethnicity/orientation/culture is important within an environment like a campus or a message board: not just as an outcome better representing the diversity of the population it's pulling its membership body from, but critically for the diversity of perspective that results from that intense microcosm you've built, and the insight and nuance of thought it can bring to each participant when they share an appropriately moderated space and each have a fair voice.

That's why we talk about things.

Click to expand...

Angelus Errare said:

Pretty much. This is an annoying issue on the "left" and really America in general is that the idea that all opinions are if equal value and are deserving of respect and should be debated. It's depressing and defeating when "allies" tell you to have respect for "differing viewpoints"

Click to expand...

Sinfamy said:

I go to class, take notes, and go home.
How do other students get so damn invested in shit on campus?
I wouldn't waste a minute there if I didn't have to.

Click to expand...

the_darkness said:

I find the notion of framing this as "The Left" turning on itself somewhat reductive. As though there are two and only two ideologies and one must toe the line lest they be cast out.



Wow. This post huh? I mean, props for leaving your original post in following the edit but this really is something.

Click to expand...

Sinfamy said:

I go to class, take notes, and go home.
How do other students get so damn invested in shit on campus?
I wouldn't waste a minute there if I didn't have to.

Click to expand...

The fallout from that coverage hit our campus like a hailstorm. It may not have been his intention, but Mr. Weinstein’s many interviews effectively became a call to arms for internet trolls and the alt-right. Online vigilantes from 4chan, Reddit and other forums swarmed to unearth Evergreen students’ contact information. They have harassed us with hundreds of phone calls, anonymous texts and terrifyingly specific threats of violence that show they know where we live and work.

After I published an essay on Medium to explain the protesters’ side of the story, my full name, phone number and home address were posted online, and I was bombarded with hate-filled messages. I found my name and personal information on message boards, along with rape threats and discussions about which racial slur fit me best (the consensus was the N-word). It took three days to get my personal information taken down, and for others it took longer.

In the past few weeks, the school has been shut down four times because of threats, including one from an anonymous caller who said, “I’m on my way to Evergreen University now with a .44 Magnum. I am gonna execute as many people on that campus as I can get a hold of.”

Downtown Olympia has seen a sudden influx of visitors wearing Nazi and white supremacist regalia. Campus buildings have been scrawled with graffiti that says, “Diversity Equals White Genocide” and “No Safe Space For Commies.” Swastikas and racial slurs have been chalked and painted on Evergreen property.

Yesterday, the campus was mostly shut down after 3 p.m. because Patriot Prayer, a right-leaning protest group that espouses a love for guns and President Trump and a hatred for so-called snowflakes, descended on the campus for a “free speech” rally. Patriot Prayer was recently in the news for marching in Portland, Ore., after the killing of two people by a white supremacist who was aligned with the group, even though the mayor of Portland pleaded with them to postpone their event.

Click to expand...

BlizzKrut said:

Couldn't have said it better myself, there are a lot of members on the forum that have this "it's either us or them" mentality, and won't for the life of them open their minds to other civilized opinions, because the world is either one thing or another, and it can't be more than one thing, hopefully the situation gets better, having discussion with more than one viewpoint is important to all parties.

Click to expand...

Dyle said:

Yesterday the New York Times published an op-ed about the situation at Evergreen State written by a student at the college. It reads sort of as a response to the op-ed in the OP and as a more personal summary of how the student body has been effected by this whole series of events. It also corroborates much of what the two Evergreen State students posted in this thread. It's an excellent read that highlights the very real danger that comes with activism in this age of partisan divide.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/media-alt-right-evergreen-college.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

Click to expand...

Widdle Puppy said:

These liberals are such a small portion of the electorate and they are basically powerless off campus unlike the crazy right which forms cohesive racial coalitions that elect politicians to office to legislate murder.

Click to expand...

SoRuffShoNuff said:

The difference between extreme liberals and extreme conservatives is that the conservatives will disagree with you on 99 issues but when they find the one you agree on they use that as a reason why you should be on their side. You could agree with the liberal on 99 issues but when they find the one you disagree on they use that as a reason why you aren't on the same side and it often ends up with you being considered an awful person. That shit was in full effect here for a while and ended up with a lot of people being banned.

Click to expand...

Trokil said:

Vice News (HBO) about the whole thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM

Wow, this stuff is creepy

Click to expand...

Trokil said:

Vice News (HBO) about the whole thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM

Wow, this stuff is creepy

Click to expand...

Nivash said:

- Weinstein, for no particularly good reason, and despite being a progressive, goes on Tucker Carlson. Tucker motherfucker Carlson. On a piece that he must have known would aim a metaphorical sledgehammer straight at his rather diverse student body and rile upp all sorts of unsavory people. I mean I understand the guy was basically under siege, but goddamn, he must have known that this was a spectularly bad judgement call.

Click to expand...

Trokil said:

As far as I know Carlson was far from his first choice but other more liberal media outlets refused to talk about this. Maybe he could have gone to Bill Maher, but according to this forum it would have been just as bad or even worse.

Click to expand...

Nivash said:

It still beggars belief, if you ask me. What would have been next on his list if Carlson wouldn't take him, for some reason- Alex Jones? I mean I get that the guy desperately wanted a platform to get his version out, but there's no way he didn't know how Carson would spin it. I'm mostly on Weinstein's "side" or whatever, but that's the one thing that keeps making me a raise a suspicious eyebrow about how pure his motives really are. It's a complete dick move.

Click to expand...

Trokil said:

Vice News (HBO) about the whole thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM

Wow, this stuff is creepy

Click to expand...

Isotropy said:

Yeesh.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when that girl has to apply for a job in the real world.

Click to expand...

Isotropy said:

Yeesh.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when that girl has to apply for a job in the real world.

Click to expand...

EviLore said:

"Although Brett has not personally said, 'go out and attack these students, go out and threaten these students,' that has been the result of his actions. He has incited white supremacists and has validated white supremacists and Nazis in our community and in the nation and I don't think that should be protected by free speech."

Okay, children. Yes, never mind the man's actual words, demand the head of your Jewish professor for "inciting Nazis" because of whatever the Nazis did in response to all this.

Whatever color you dye your hair, whatever you identify as, you won't be an ally of progressive values whatsoever with bullshit like this coming out of your mouth. Keep on threatening and silencing and "fuck you"ing your ultra progressive, peaceful, tolerant-to-a-fault faculty (and fellow students literally afraid to "hold a nuanced position") within your ultimate campus safe space, instead of going after the actual Nazis involved.

That'll teach those Nazis.

Click to expand...