• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[Fine Brothers video] Teens React to Free Speech

MUnited83

For you.
Agreed, there's a lot of friendly fire going on lately. I don't believe anyone here thinks there's anything of value to be had from a conversation with Milo Yiannopoulos or Richard Spencer, but I often see other sensible people like Sam Harris or Maajid Nawaz being thrown under the same bus.

Sam Harris, the dude that thinks every Muslim should be profiled? Sensible?
 

Condom

Member
Guys remember:
all-reactionaries-are-paper-tigers-in-appearance-the-des-are-4414225.png
 
The video that the kids were watching was an over exaggeration, a hyperbolic skit of what the most liberal PC culture COULD become down the road. It's obviously not close to being there yet and the kids recognize this. But, its not totally far-fetched when you consider if many tumblr bloggers had their way, this would be closer to a reality. So I think the kids responded to it just fine, and its good to hear that they don't subscribe to a tumblr version of PC culture future.
 
Whenever "free speech" gets brought up with overseas (or canadian) friends, they're baffled that this country does more to protect bigots and literal nazies than the rights of minorities, and think our lack of hate speech laws is insane.

I grew up thinking that if the worst speech was protected, then all speech is protected, but turned out that's not the case. Also NO ONE speaks like the people in that video. It's not even good satire.
 
Re: Sam Harris and race, check out this transcript of his podcast if you have the time.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/racism-and-violence-in-america

The purpose of my conversation with Glenn today is to dive headlong into these controversial waters of race and racism and violence in America—as though my work weren’t controversial enough already. But I’ve been wanting to do this for a while, because these issues are so consequential and politically divisive. I’ve been worried about doing this for obvious reasons. I raised the topic in my podcast with Neil deGrasse Tyson, you may recall, but he didn’t want to touch it—which I understand. He didn’t feel the time was right to weigh in on these issues personally.

But for some reason I’ve been feeling that the time is right for me. It’s really been bothering me that so much of what I hear about race and violence in America doesn’t make any sense, and the fact that I’ve been worried about speaking about these issues in public was also bothering me. In fact, the implications of speaking about race in particular caused me to cancel a book contract I had last year: It seemed too much of a liability. But I have since stiffened my spine, and I was left wondering who I could talk to about these things. My goal was to find an African-American intellectual who could really get into the details with me, but whom I also trusted to have a truly rational conversation that wouldn’t be contaminated by identity politics.

translation: I needed a black man to cosign my suspect views
 

Slayven

Member
Re: Sam Harris and race, check out this transcript of his podcast if you have the time.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/racism-and-violence-in-america



translation: I needed a black man to cosign my suspect views

My goal was to find an African-American intellectual who could really get into the details with me, but whom I also trusted to have a truly rational conversation that wouldn't be contaminated by identity politics.

Also "I don't want to be challenged". Shit like this is why "debate" is useless with these people.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Whenever "free speech" gets brought up with overseas (or canadian) friends, they're baffled that this country does more to protect bigots and literal nazies than the rights of minorities, and think our lack of hate speech laws is insane.

I grew up thinking that if the worst speech was protected, then all speech is protected, but turned out that's not the case. This country needs to start adopting the hate speech laws of our neighbors and friends overseas, and stop putting hate speech over the protection of minority rights.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'm for maintaining strong free speech protections while also realizing that we've generally been terrible at improving race relations, and we could be taking much stronger measures. I can also be concerned about the legal implications of colleges cracking down on free speech while also recognizing that it's probably not an issue at many colleges, and there are certainly bigger threats to speech than dumb liberal college kids.

That said, I didn't want to give The Fine Brothers a click so I went straight to the video, and jeez. The whole classroom metaphor doesn't work, and it's so heavy-handed as to be eye-rolling ("Let's have a close up shot of the woman raising her hand... but it's a raised fist instead! Commies!") Feels like the best response is a Voltaire style "I'll defend your right to say it... but you wasted time and money filming this?"
 
The video that the kids were watching was an over exaggeration, a hyperbolic skit of what the most liberal PC culture COULD become down the road. It's obviously not close to being there yet and the kids recognize this. But, its not totally far-fetched when you consider if many tumblr bloggers had their way, this would be closer to a reality. So I think the kids responded to it just fine, and its good to hear that they don't subscribe to a tumblr version of PC culture future.

Yes, tumblr wants 1+1=multiculturalism.
 
They don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'm for maintaining strong free speech protections while also realizing that we've generally been terrible at improving race relations, and we could be taking much stronger measures. I can also be concerned about the legal implications of colleges cracking down on free speech while also recognizing that it's probably not an issue at many colleges, and there are certainly bigger threats to speech than dumb liberal college kids.

That said, I didn't want to give The Fine Brothers a click so I went straight to the video, and jeez. The whole classroom metaphor doesn't work, and it's so heavy-handed as to be eye-rolling ("Let's have a close up shot of the woman raising her hand... but it's a raised fist instead! Commies!") Feels like the best response is a Voltaire style "I'll defend your right to say it... but you wasted time and money filming this?"

Yeah I don't know what colleges those kids in the video even came from. People didn't talk anywhere near like that in any of the clubs or classes I went to. Or was there like some sea change I wasn't aware of that occurred in the last 5 years?

But anyways, even so, I think my ideas of "if the worst is protected than all is protected" has been shattered since I left college. The reality is that the worst is protected and the minorities still get shat upon. Police will protect the nazi 1 day and then beat a homosexual the next day. Free speech does nothing for any oppressed group and only protects the oppressor it seems like.
 

Sunster

Member
The video that the kids were watching was an over exaggeration, a hyperbolic skit of what the most liberal PC culture COULD become down the road. It's obviously not close to being there yet and the kids recognize this. But, its not totally far-fetched when you consider if many tumblr bloggers had their way, this would be closer to a reality. So I think the kids responded to it just fine, and its good to hear that they don't subscribe to a tumblr version of PC culture future.

so some teens blogging on tumblr means PC culture will get so out of control that white men will actually be oppressed? I wonder what that means for our future if we go by the extreme few on reddit.
 
The video that the kids were watching was an over exaggeration, a hyperbolic skit of what the most liberal PC culture COULD become down the road. It's obviously not close to being there yet and the kids recognize this. But, its not totally far-fetched when you consider if many tumblr bloggers had their way, this would be closer to a reality. So I think the kids responded to it just fine, and its good to hear that they don't subscribe to a tumblr version of PC culture future.
What is this Tumblr version of PC culture? Why are you treating hyperbolic statements from 12 - 16 year olds as the boogeyman, when, ideally, what they are fighting for isn't really all that fucked up to begin with. Miss me with that. Why are we so afraid of them when the_donald, comprised of GROWN ass men and Voat exist? Why do you care so much? Do you really think the day will come when progressives will enslave straight white men so we can all live in a futuristic bejeweled society of sexually experimentive beings?
 
so some teens blogging on tumblr means PC culture will get so out of control that white men will actually be oppressed? I wonder what that means for our future if we go by the extreme few on reddit.

I don't know maybe someone should film a skit on it and post it online
 

Euron

Member
The video in question is a disgusting misrepresentation and if people desire that everyone "hears what the other side has to say" then the viewpoints of the other side should not be made into a mangled caricature of what they actually are.

To begin, you cannot bring up the "censorship" of Milo as evidence of drowning out other viewpoints. Milo acquired the personal information of transgender students at some of the universities he went to and shared it with his audience that spanned well beyond the university, turning the students into targets. Even if we disregard his pedophilia comments which should prevent him from ever again being a public figure, his targeted acts of hate are indefensible.

And sometimes the "opinions" of people are toxic and flat out wrong. For instance, in regards to the "allowing people to express themselves" comment, a student's desire of expression may be through waving the confederate flag, a symbol of a failed rebellion that promoting the ownership of a race of human beings. Such regressive thinking promotes a toxic living and learning environment and has no place on college campuses, or anywhere else for that matter.

It's hard to listen to many people who echo sentiments that you "fundamentally disagree with" when those sentiments seek to degrade individuals or groups of a certain race, gender, religion, and more simply because of who they are. People like Milo who perpetuate these notions do not desire a discussion at all and simply feel the need to inflame others for attention.

Furthermore, if the person who made the original video wishes to have a discussion regarding the inclusion of different viewpoints, he should do so in a way that does not initially mock the group he may wish to reach out to, killing any productive discussion.
 

Caelus

Member
The video in question is a disgusting misrepresentation and if people desire that everyone "hears what the other side has to say" then the viewpoints of the other side should not be made into a mangled caricature of what they actually are.

To begin, you cannot bring up the "censorship" of Milo as evidence of drowning out other viewpoints. Milo acquired the personal information of transgender students at some of the universities he went to and shared it with his audience that spanned well beyond the university, turning the students into targets. Even if we disregard his pedophilia comments which should prevent him from ever again being a public figure, his targeted acts of hate are indefensible.

And sometimes the "opinions" of people are toxic and flat out wrong. For instance, in regards to the "allowing people to express themselves" comment, a student's desire of expression may be through waving the confederate flag, a symbol of a failed rebellion that promoting the ownership of a race of human beings. Such regressive thinking promotes a toxic living and learning environment and has no place on college campuses, or anywhere else for that matter.

It's hard to listen to many people who echo sentiments that you "fundamentally disagree with" when those sentiments seek to degrade individuals or groups of a certain race, gender, religion, and more simply because of who they are. People like Milo who perpetuate these notions do not desire a discussion at all and simply feel the need to inflame others for attention.

Furthermore, if the person who made the original video wishes to have a discussion regarding the inclusion of different viewpoints, he should do so in a way that does not initially mock the group he may wish to reach out to, killing any productive discussion.

This. This so much. Ugh.

I'm so exhausted of this paranoia over 'PC culture' considering who's in power right now.
 
The video that the kids were watching was an over exaggeration, a hyperbolic skit of what the most liberal PC culture COULD become down the road. It's obviously not close to being there yet and the kids recognize this. But, its not totally far-fetched when you consider if many tumblr bloggers had their way, this would be closer to a reality. So I think the kids responded to it just fine, and its good to hear that they don't subscribe to a tumblr version of PC culture future.

lmao
 
The video in question is a disgusting misrepresentation and if people desire that everyone "hears what the other side has to say" then the viewpoints of the other side should not be made into a mangled caricature of what they actually are.

To begin, you cannot bring up the "censorship" of Milo as evidence of drowning out other viewpoints. Milo acquired the personal information of transgender students at some of the universities he went to and shared it with his audience that spanned well beyond the university, turning the students into targets. Even if we disregard his pedophilia comments which should prevent him from ever again being a public figure, his targeted acts of hate are indefensible.

And sometimes the "opinions" of people are toxic and flat out wrong. For instance, in regards to the "allowing people to express themselves" comment, a student's desire of expression may be through waving the confederate flag, a symbol of a failed rebellion that promoting the ownership of a race of human beings. Such regressive thinking promotes a toxic living and learning environment and has no place on college campuses, or anywhere else for that matter.

It's hard to listen to many people who echo sentiments that you "fundamentally disagree with" when those sentiments seek to degrade individuals or groups of a certain race, gender, religion, and more simply because of who they are. People like Milo who perpetuate these notions do not desire a discussion at all and simply feel the need to inflame others for attention.

Furthermore, if the person who made the original video wishes to have a discussion regarding the inclusion of different viewpoints, he should do so in a way that does not initially mock the group he may wish to reach out to, killing any productive discussion.

say that
 

Slayven

Member
The video in question is a disgusting misrepresentation and if people desire that everyone "hears what the other side has to say" then the viewpoints of the other side should not be made into a mangled caricature of what they actually are.

To begin, you cannot bring up the "censorship" of Milo as evidence of drowning out other viewpoints. Milo acquired the personal information of transgender students at some of the universities he went to and shared it with his audience that spanned well beyond the university, turning the students into targets. Even if we disregard his pedophilia comments which should prevent him from ever again being a public figure, his targeted acts of hate are indefensible.

And sometimes the "opinions" of people are toxic and flat out wrong. For instance, in regards to the "allowing people to express themselves" comment, a student's desire of expression may be through waving the confederate flag, a symbol of a failed rebellion that promoting the ownership of a race of human beings. Such regressive thinking promotes a toxic living and learning environment and has no place on college campuses, or anywhere else for that matter.

It's hard to listen to many people who echo sentiments that you "fundamentally disagree with" when those sentiments seek to degrade individuals or groups of a certain race, gender, religion, and more simply because of who they are. People like Milo who perpetuate these notions do not desire a discussion at all and simply feel the need to inflame others for attention.

Furthermore, if the person who made the original video wishes to have a discussion regarding the inclusion of different viewpoints, he should do so in a way that does not initially mock the group he may wish to reach out to, killing any productive discussion.

Thank you
 

Toxi

Banned
What is this Tumblr version of PC culture? Why are you treating hyperbolic statements from 12 - 16 year olds as the boogeyman, when, ideally, what they are fighting for isn't really all that fucked up to begin with. Miss me with that. Why are we so afraid of them when the_donald, comprised of GROWN ass men and Voat exist? Why do you care so much? Do you really think the day will come when progressives will enslave straight white men so we can all live in a futuristic bejeweled society of sexually experimentive beings?
If I've learned anything from these discussions, it's that undergrads on college campuses should be held to higher standards than the President of the United States. Posts on Tumblr are more damaging to our culture than widespread corporate and state-sponsored propaganda.
 

Lo_Fi

Member
They don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'm for maintaining strong free speech protections while also realizing that we've generally been terrible at improving race relations, and we could be taking much stronger measures. I can also be concerned about the legal implications of colleges cracking down on free speech while also recognizing that it's probably not an issue at many colleges, and there are certainly bigger threats to speech than dumb liberal college kids.

That said, I didn't want to give The Fine Brothers a click so I went straight to the video, and jeez. The whole classroom metaphor doesn't work, and it's so heavy-handed as to be eye-rolling ("Let's have a close up shot of the woman raising her hand... but it's a raised fist instead! Commies!") Feels like the best response is a Voltaire style "I'll defend your right to say it... but you wasted time and money filming this?"

(Quoting you but this applies to a lot of the discussion in this thread)

You're losing the argument from the start, though, by even recognizing the ridiculous argument that free speech somehow factors into this scenario.

Free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. How are we as a country still not clear on this?

I'm sure there are some people that want to make hate speech illegal in the US. But even for the infamously extreme (like the students yelling at Evergreen College professors, the woman in the taxi with the hula doll, and the pomegranate gore trigger warning on tumblr), they're not advocating that people be put in jail for saying certain things, as far as I've ever seen.

I may be wrong, and am willing to change my tune if there are sources that can prove me wrong. But I haven't seen anything that has done that so far.

The frustrating thing is these discussions always turn into vague notions of the original concept:

"Oh yeah, I wasn't talking about ACTUAL free speech. I'm talking about the vague concept of having an open discussion."
"Oh, I wasn't talking about ACTUAL trigger warnings. I'm talking about the vague concept of people shielding themselves from words."
"Oh, I wasn't talking about ACTUAL censorship. I was talking about someone suggesting to a creator ways to change their work."
"Oh, I wasn't talking about ACTUAL safe spaces. I was talking about the vague notion of people not being challenged like they would in the real world."

People in this thread want to have an open discussion? Start the discussion with the correct definition of the word that the whole discussion revolves around.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
(Quoting you but this applies to a lot of the discussion in this thread)

You're losing the argument from the start, though, by even recognizing the ridiculous argument that free speech somehow factors into this scenario.

Free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. How are we as a country still not clear on this?

I'm sure there are some people that want to make hate speech illegal in the US. But even for the infamously extreme (like the students yelling at Evergreen College professors, the woman in the taxi with the hula doll, and the pomegranate gore trigger warning on tumblr), they're not advocating that people be put in jail for saying certain things, as far as I've ever seen.

I may be wrong, and am willing to change my tune if there are sources that can prove me wrong. But I haven't seen anything that has done that so far.

The frustrating thing is these discussions always turn into vague notions of the original concept:

"Oh yeah, I wasn't talking about ACTUAL free speech. I'm talking about the vague concept of having an open discussion."
"Oh, I wasn't talking about ACTUAL trigger warnings. I'm talking about the vague concept of people shielding themselves from words."
"Oh, I wasn't talking about ACTUAL censorship. I was talking about someone suggesting to a creator ways to change their work."
"Oh, I wasn't talking about ACTUAL safe spaces. I was talking about the vague notion of people not being challenged like they would in the real world."

People in this thread want to have an open discussion? Start the discussion with the correct definition of the word that the whole discussion revolves around.

Except you're not correct either. Jurisprudence has long held that there are protections to free speech beyond just "the government can't throw you in jail" (hell, that isn't even what the first amendment says)—that includes if you have the right to speak in public forums and the like, and most universities fall under that definition. Just being a nasty piece of shit alone* is not reason enough to suppress free speech, and in some cases they would have a legal right to speak at universities, so yes the protestors are ipso facto against the legal definition of free speech in that context.

*Milo would be probably an exception, though, since he personally has targeted specific individuals for harassment, which isn't protected.
 
Except you're not correct either. Jurisprudence has long held that there are protections to free speech beyond just "the government can't throw you in jail" (hell, that isn't even what the first amendment says)—that includes if you have the right to speak in public forums and the like, and most universities fall under that definition. Just being a nasty piece of shit alone* is not reason enough to suppress free speech, and in some cases they would have a legal right to speak at universities, so yes the protestors are ipso facto against the legal definition of free speech in that context.

*Milo would be probably an exception, though, since he personally has targeted specific individuals for harassment, which isn't protected.

Why hasn't he been arrested, or sued by the victims, if that's the case?
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Why hasn't he been arrested, or sued by the victims, if that's the case?

Probably a variety of factors, including the issues of jurisdiction with cybercrime, the fact that court cases are expensive, and someone suing him would probably just be harassed even more by trolls and his supporters.
 
The ignorance, naïveté, and ironically, the lack of rationally thinking things through on display was infuriating. It's probably a good thing that youth turnout is down, these people need to learn the hard way what it's like to let people like Trump control the narrative.
 

Lo_Fi

Member
Except you're not correct either. Jurisprudence has long held that there are protections to free speech beyond just "the government can't throw you in jail" (hell, that isn't even what the first amendment says)—that includes if you have the right to speak in public forums and the like, and most universities fall under that definition. Just being a nasty piece of shit alone* is not reason enough to suppress free speech, and in some cases they would have a legal right to speak at universities, so yes the protestors are ipso facto against the legal definition of free speech in that context.

I would love to know what the legal definition is, then, of suppressing free speech.

We have the right to protest, but not the right to protest university speakers? What? In that case, why haven't all of these protesters been arrested?

If I have a mild criticism of a speaker after their speech at a university, am I suppressing their free speech?
 
The original video is absolutely idiotic, and if I didn't already think that the Fine Brothers were terrible, their co-signing of this BS is atrocious. The FB asking that girl about "how liberals stifle conservative viewpoints"...Christ. They've got some fucking stones saying that shit to a POC young woman. Such an idiotic understanding of safe spaces too..."they want a place where they won't be challenged or uncomfortable." How about a place where they won't be viciously attacked, whether emotionally, verbally, or even physically, just for being black, Hispanic, gay, trans, etc.? This shit is infuriating.

The original video seriously makes no sense...I'm a college instructor, I've taught in universities, high schools, etc. I teach humanities courses. There's nothing like this going on. Nobody is shoving left wing ideology in anyone's face. On the other hand, if you're actively spreading hateful bullshit that attacks other students and teachers for being gay or black or a woman, yes, you'll be shut down. And? Free speech means you won't be arrested and jailed, but any school, office, company, etc. has the right to suspend you or fire you for being hateful and nasty and threatening. Are we really fighting for a world where the Milos and other assholes of society can have a forum on any given university campus to out and dead name random trans folks? Ok, he can't be jailed for doing it, but is giving him a forum to do so, sometimes at taxpayer expense and right in front of the very people he'll victimize, really the sort of hill that these Fine Brother idiots want to die on?
 

Fuchsdh

Member
I would love to know what the legal definition is, then, of suppressing free speech.

We have the right to protest, but not the right to protest university speakers? What? In that case, why haven't all of these protesters been arrested?

If I have a mild criticism of a speaker after their speech at a university, am I suppressing their free speech?

You do have the right to protest university speakers, but people disrupting proceedings are going to be arrested, along with causing property damage, etc. You're only suppressing it if you actually try to stop it from happening.
 

Sunster

Member
You do have the right to protest university speakers, but people disrupting proceedings are going to be arrested, along with causing property damage, etc. You're only suppressing it if you actually try to stop it from happening.

Unless you stop it legally.
 
Top Bottom