He replied to a post asking for statistics. He cherrypicked 3 or so incidents. Those are not stats.
I actually was replying to the problem that free speech is only hate speech, but I guess you ignored that as well. Strange this is somehow proving my point I guess.
Huh? Are we really going to pretend that your intent in this thread is to not shit on liberals being overtly PC? I looked at your examples and you, not surprisingly, chose ones that immediately attacked "the SJWS" that perpetuated those "incidents" against people.I actually was replying to the problem that free speech is only hate speech, but I guess you ignored that as well. Strange this is somehow proving my point I guess.
And we are back to truism and truthiness.
Again, asking for "statistics" and posting those statistics would need "sources" backing up those statistics as well. I've yet to see any numbers and I've yet to see you or the poster you're defending posting any. Now catch the tea on thatHe was asked for "statistics and sources".
He provided sources in the form of examples.
You ignored the examples he provided and shifted the goal posts.
I think it's more that a lot of racists, sexists, and bigots try to hide under "free speech" as a way to shield their hate speech. It's not a simple disagreement. It's a disagreement on someone's existence.
You're going to get people who go too far sometimes, but they aren't representative of the whole and it's not that huge of a trend.
Everyone is in some arrangement of bubbles. The key to progress is being a bubble buster. Conversation is a way to present new ideas and perspectives to people entrenched in harmful ideas. Everyone has the capacity to be rational, and if an idea is sufficiently compelling, it will stick with people, regardless of whether they accept it up front. I used to be a religious conservative, for example. I wasn't looking to become a secular liberal, but the compelling ideas from others I disagreed with me stuck and drove me to change.Them saying, "open minded conversations" are meaningless since conservatives are super in a bubble of conspiracy, believing in obvious lies, and general shitheadery.
I actually was replying to the problem that free speech is only hate speech, but I guess you ignored that as well. Strange this is somehow proving my point I guess..
Are you saying that people shouldn't get any flak or pushback for whatever disgusting thing they might say?Free speech is already regulated by the law. But it goes beyond the law and that is the problem. Either against opinions or language itself. And the left has a long tradition for fighting for free speech, even the most disgusting versions of it. Chomsky and others were actually even more liberal than the law. So attacking the idea of free speech goes against ideals of the left not the right.
i don't think there is something. Most of the people who are complaining about their freedom of speech just want to say hurtful things without consequence.Well if the President talks about it and there are tons of articles and professors are making podcasts about it, there has to be something.
Some of you would be taken more seriously if you stood up for the free speech of minorities as well as the free speech targeted against them.
This is kind of an odd comment.
Whos speaking against minorities here? Whos refusing to defend them?
Such an odd comment.
This is kind of an odd comment.
Whos speaking against minorities here? Whos refusing to defend them?
Such an odd comment.
The point is that there's so much more concern in the media about the suppression of hate speech than there is the suppression of minority voices.
Whos refusing to defend them?
Absolutely. But he referenced people in this thread and I havent seen examples of those people doing what he accused them of.
It just seemed like he was trying to silence dissent by tossing out claims of covert racism. Maybe Im wrong, but its the only way that comment makes sense in my head.
At least we can confirm whining that free speech is under attack is at the intellectual level of teenagers. That is it's the opinion of the underdeveloped.
This is kind of an odd comment.
Whos speaking against minorities here? Whos refusing to defend them?
Such an odd comment.
Its so strange to dismiss this entire subject when this very forum faced the same issues recently, [post=239047632]which Evillore himself brought up.[/post] Granted, its not exactly the same form av blunt satire in that video, but the underlying issues are the same.
Considering there's major inequality still it should obviously be clear to any observant person that not nearly enough are.
Yeah, my comment is going to take away people's right to post-_-
True as that may be, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The poster made a specific claim about people in this thread and how they dont speak up for minorities. I didnt see any proof of that assertion, which made the comment stick out to me.
If there are examples of them refusing to stand up for minorities, Im more than happy to admit Im wrong. Otherwise, its a really comment.
What does this forum have to do with free speech?
True as that may be, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The poster made a specific claim about people in this thread and how they dont speak up for minorities. I didnt see any proof of that assertion, which made the comment stick out to me.
If there are examples of them refusing to stand up for minorities, Im more than happy to admit Im wrong. Otherwise, its a really comment.
Open debate more like, which i think this forum is for, without being cheaply shouted down instead of argued against. I think thats the core issue here, isnt it?
If you think it's baseless, that's fine. Free speech and all
In Evilore's post it said no justifiable reason. So I don't see what a justifiable reason like thinking other races are subhuman has to do with anything.What value does open debate have with somebody who thinks a segment of people are sub human because of their skin color? Personally I struggle to imagine any sort of growth talking to somebody so blatantly ignorant.
Edit - sorry for double post. Phone f'ed up.
Or you could provide some kind of proof to back up what youre claiming.
Before I get tossed in with the racists here, let me say Im not saying racism isnt an issue. Im not defending racists. Racism is disgusting and wrong and absolutely a problem in America (and worldwide). Its everywhere, including the halls of power. I would never argue otherwise.
But to just toss that claim around at people because they disagree with you on the idea of what constitutes free speech or whatever just weakens your argument, in my opinion.
In Evilore's post it said no justifiable reason. So I don't see what a justifiable reason like thinking other races are subhuman has to do with anything.
What value does open debate have with somebody who thinks a segment of people are sub human because of their skin color? Personally I struggle to imagine any sort of growth talking to somebody so blatantly ignorant.
Edit - sorry for double post. Phone f'ed up.
The video description links to the site http://artists4america.org/ which is a project sponsored by Goldwater Institute, a conservative / libertarian think-tank.
If you spend any sort of time in threads dealing with inseqality you would be able to parse many 'free speech' advocate posters appear to be missing.
I certainly agree that there is a subset of individuals who are beyond discussion, but it seems the problem is where people draw that line, when exactly the demonizing starts. You seem to be implying that the only individuals who get shouted down like this are those on the far right end of the spectrum, and if that was the case, there would be no problem. But i think we both know thats not the case. Even on this forum, there is evidence of that, which is why i linked you to that evillore post.
Well if the President talks about it and there are tons of articles and professors are making podcasts about it, there has to be something.
I don't believe anybody gets 'shouted down' on here. This isn't a public forum. I have been dogpiled and yes even banned here before. Not once did I feel my speech was being infringed upon or I was being oppressed for my opinion.
Ok, Im glad you feel that way, but it happened. This isnt a matter of believing.
I certainly agree that there is a subset of individuals who are beyond discussion, but it seems the problem is where people draw that line, when exactly the demonizing starts. You seem to be implying that the only individuals who get shouted down like this are those on the far right end of the spectrum, and if that was the case, there would be no problem. But i think we both know thats not the case. Even on this forum, there is evidence of that, which is why i linked you to that evillore post.
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.
What is the 'it' exactly?
Dude, how much hand-holding do you need here really? The "shouting down" happened, the stifling of debate, which is at the core of that satirical video, which this thread in turn is about.
"It's important to listen to them because you want them to listen to you."
Best comment in the video. Everyone thinks they are right. They're not. How do we fix that?
Have a hard time calling Sam Harris sensible with some the sexist remarks he has made. I know next to nothing about nawaz though so I avoid commenting on those.
Dude, how much hand-holding do you need here really? The "shouting down" happened, the stifling of debate, which is at the core of that satirical video, which this thread in turn is about.
My point is that he's not a white supremacist. Some people you draw the line and say they are a lost cause, that's fine. Events like the one at the Evergreen College might be rare statistically irrelevant as some say, but If someone like Sam Harris is seen as not even being worth talking to, then I believe the left has serious problems that are worth addressing.
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.
Have a hard time calling Sam Harris sensible with some the sexist remarks he has made. I know next to nothing about nawaz though so I avoid commenting on those.
Just wanted clarrification so I know I was on the same page. You know, what people seek for in an open debate? Are you now opposing that idea because it inconveniences you?
In any case my response is so what? Not everything that can be debated is worth debating. Such as climate change deniers. All they do is muddle a more important conversation. The debate should be on how to solve it, not whether it is a thing.