Free Speech: Let's do this properly

What exactly do you mean by "non-aberrant government"? A normal government? What makes a government normal?

And what harder stance on the KKK would prevent a Trump presidency?
An aberrant government is "leadership that proves obstinate or insensitive to an extent that it goes against the interests and rights of it's own people" so a non-aberrant government is simply "leadership that doesn't go against the interests and rights of it's own people" now that doesn't mean a government that proves popular, just one that doesn't commit criminal acts towards those it's supposed to rule, I call Trump's government aberrant because it has mandated executive orders against USA nationals, the allegations of treason don't help either

as for the KKK, it is a know racist hate group and Nazi sympathiser and it's a know fact that many of its members supported Trump (which might have not counted in the national election since HRC was so despised, but did count on him being elected republican candidate) had they been persecuted someone with better qualifications for being president would have been candidate

why hate speech is tolerated in the United States is beyond me; I mean nations such as Canada and Germany have laws against hate speech and have not abused them in any way and it's not as if they're somehow less likely to elect poor leaders than the rest of the world; like, I'm aware of the fact that censorship can quickly go out of control which is why I advocate it only towards ideas we know are by prior experience of it been put into practice and only those ideas, radical ideas that seem repellent but have never been put into practice are only theoretically harmful and thus shouldn't be officially persecuted

Nazi ideology has been put into practice, lead to tremendous tragedy, thus we know it's harmful and therefore it should be illegal to espouse it
 
Last edited:

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
An aberrant government is "leadership that proves obstinate or insensitive to an extent that it goes against the interests and rights of it's own people" so a non-aberrant government is simply "leadership that doesn't go against the interests and rights of it's own people" now that doesn't mean a government that proves popular, just one that doesn't commit criminal acts towards those it's supposed to rule, I call Trump's government aberrant because it has mandated executive orders against USA nationals, the allegations of treason don't help either

as for the KKK, it is a know racist hate group and Nazi sympathiser and it's a know fact that many of its members supported Trump (which might have not counted in the national election since HRC was so despised, but did count on him being elected republican candidate) had they been persecuted someone with better qualifications for being president would have been candidate

why hate speech is tolerated in the United States is beyond me; I mean nations such as Canada and Germany have laws against hate speech and have not abused them in any way and it's not as if they're somehow less likely to elect poor leaders than the rest of the world; like, I'm aware of the fact that censorship can quickly go out of control which is why I advocate it only towards ideas we know are by prior experience of it been put into practice and only those ideas, radical ideas that seem repellent but have never been put into practice are only theoretically harmful and thus shouldn't be officially persecuted

Nazi ideology has been put into practice, lead to tremendous tragedy, thus we know it's harmful and therefore it should be illegal to espouse it
Communist ideology has been put into practice, lead to tremendous tragedy, thus we know it's harmful and therefore it should be illegal to espouse it

or would you say that's a violation of free speech?
 
Communist ideology has been put into practice, lead to tremendous tragedy, thus we know it's harmful and therefore it should be illegal to espouse it

or would you say that's a violation of free speech?
Well, you could argue that since Stalin the USSSR wasn't communist at all, and while a questionable Stalin did usurp his own party and kill they guy Lenin designated as his successor

on the other hand Mao did put socialism into practice and while quite a few Chinese people will defend his actions as necessary it'd be very easy to argue they where monstrous, there's still some wiggle room there though

the problem is that when McCarthy made his Witch Hunt he went not only after Stalinist sympathisers but anyone who'd even read Marx
the problem with making socialism illegal is just how many variations it has, many opposing each other

Nazi ideology is pretty homogenous tough and their ideas those that lead to the holocaust, not only that Neo-Nazis are well know to commit violent crimes since their existence

but you know, I do agree that Stalinist ideology should be censored and if you happen to find some Neo-Nazi ideology that's highly different from that of Hitler's and his followers (no idea how that'd work) that particular branch should be left alone by the government
 
An aberrant government is "leadership that proves obstinate or insensitive to an extent that it goes against the interests and rights of it's own people" so a non-aberrant government is simply "leadership that doesn't go against the interests and rights of it's own people" now that doesn't mean a government that proves popular, just one that doesn't commit criminal acts towards those it's supposed to rule, I call Trump's government aberrant because it has mandated executive orders against USA nationals, the allegations of treason don't help either

as for the KKK, it is a know racist hate group and Nazi sympathiser and it's a know fact that many of its members supported Trump (which might have not counted in the national election since HRC was so despised, but did count on him being elected republican candidate) had they been persecuted someone with better qualifications for being president would have been candidate

why hate speech is tolerated in the United States is beyond me; I mean nations such as Canada and Germany have laws against hate speech and have not abused them in any way and it's not as if they're somehow less likely to elect poor leaders than the rest of the world; like, I'm aware of the fact that censorship can quickly go out of control which is why I advocate it only towards ideas we know are by prior experience of it been put into practice and only those ideas, radical ideas that seem repellent but have never been put into practice are only theoretically harmful and thus shouldn't be officially persecuted

Nazi ideology has been put into practice, lead to tremendous tragedy, thus we know it's harmful and therefore it should be illegal to espouse it
i get where you're coming from, but you have to realize these things are ultimately a matter of perspective. a case could be made for abortions killing countless unborn children, for instance. i've heard a lot of odd reasoning for why homosexuality's some crime against humanity. climate change is becoming a dirty term for the epa. even nazi ideology being obviously wrong will be called into question by white supremacists and fringe radicals. you even admit that the majority could be proven wrong, and you have to account for so many factors in any given situation that something we once thought was proven wrong could still very well be proven correct.

your party will not always be in power, and free speech exists to protect those who are in the minority. look at what politicians do to district boundaries to remain in control, and imagine what they would do to our words.

the upside to peeps being allowed to spew vile falsehoods is you're free to call bullshit on them to your heart's content.
 
I kinda posted I already know this?
While I agree that certain ideas are indeed toxic and should be rein in I find that in practice people tend to confuse fringe with toxic

like for example; we're currently certain that vaccines are indeed necessary and that the anti-vaccination camp is spreading ideas which not only has been disproven but that by preventing children from been vaccinated they create safe havens for bacteria to incubate and not only risk the unvaccinated children lives but the population as a whole so you could easily come to the conclusion that they ideas are toxic
but (and this is me playing devil's advocate) imagine that say 50 years down the line we found out that vaccines where causing autism somehow and that by inoculating children we where actually harming them, yes it's a ridiculous scenario but remember we once awarded a Nobel prize to the inventor of lobotomies
that's why advocate "only in cases where it has put to practice and lead to tragedy" no this will lead to horror cases, they have to been proven to already happened and lead to an undefendable tragedy
like Mao had his actions defended by some including some of the people he oppressed, so while questionable Chinese socialist cannot be proven to be fully negative
the fact that Neo-Nazis are also holocaust deniers is telling
 

EV

Banned deucer.
Sharing photos on Twitter/Facebook of the Charlottesville Nazi demonstration in order to get Nazis fired: Good/bad/gross abuse of free speech by targeting their free speech/something else?
 
Sharing photos on Twitter/Facebook of the Charlottesville Nazi demonstration in order to get Nazis fired: Good/bad/gross abuse of free speech by targeting their free speech/something else?
If they don't want to get fired and suffer the social consequences of being part of a nazi rally, then they shouldn't have gone, simple as that. And i think it's entirely a good thing because there should be fucking consequences to doing that shit, and this is one of them.

edit:
Communist ideology has been put into practice, lead to tremendous tragedy, thus we know it's harmful and therefore it should be illegal to espouse it

or would you say that's a violation of free speech?
lol, nice one on bringing it up for the sole reason to trying to trip up another user, yet failing horribly at it. Your "fuck the evil leftist's!!!" plan will go super well i'm sure with such amazing tactics such as this

edit 2: Oh wait, you're also a person who thinks that it was Philando Castile's fault that a cop decided to shoot him for his hand being kinda close to a firearm, and not that the cop was a fucking incomptent and shitty person. This just keeps getting better and better
 
Last edited:

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
EV Are the pictures public? If so, then not much question about sharing them. Are they private / restricted to friends? Things get dicey. "revealing private information," such as work location or addresses, gets very dicey and that's just basically doxxing. People get in serious trouble for it.

The bigger question is: do you think attending a nazi rally is just cause for firing somebody? Every year in my diversity training I am reminded that political affiliations are not protected under law, so your employer can fire people at will for political reasons. Harassment due to political affiliation is also not protected under the law. Is this a good policy to have? If you can fire people for attending alt-right rallies, what's stopping you from firing everybody that voted for Bernie in the primaries? (I'm not trying to say there's no difference between the two groups, but rather the act of firing both of them for similar reasons). I don't really know what the answer is, because both employer and employee obviously have opinions, but whose trumps whose? Being required by law to not fire somebody and firing somebody for political beliefs infringe on two different people's "free speech," so who is affected less?


edit 2: Oh wait, you're also a person who thinks that it was Philando Castile's fault that a cop decided to shoot him for his hand being kinda close to a firearm, and not that the cop was a fucking incomptent and shitty person. This just keeps getting better and better
How is this related to the argument at hand? Attack the argument, not the user.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
EV
The bigger question is: do you think attending a nazi rally is just cause for firing somebody?
If their job is in the service industry at all, or they work with (coworkers, customers, people from codependent businesses) anyone who is not white / not cis-het / not Christian, then I think their political beliefs would be an impediment to the job they are doing and probably should be fired.

Political views being protected when it comes to work environments would be extremely difficult to do, obviously you have to fire someone who is vocal at work about their political view to deport all non whites (just like you can fire someone who is religious / non-religious harassing someone to get them to be their (non)religion), but if they aren't vocal about it but it comes out that they went to a rally that espouses those views, how could you ever expect anyone of color that works with them (really anyone who isn't a twat) to be comfortable doing their job, its probably a disservice to your own productivity. Also if sexual orientation / gender identity aren't protected from firing under federal law, in what world is a non-intrinsic trait deserving of being so (SOs religion too, but w/e).

EVBeing required by law to not fire somebody and firing somebody for political beliefs infringe on two different people's "free speech," so who is affected less?
Being fired because you attended a nazi rally is not a violation of your free speech, free speech does not protect you from the consequences of your speech, it simply means you won't be prosecuted by the government for what you say. The government preventing an employer for firing someone because of political reasons would be a limitation on their freedom of speech, although the civil rights act (and a couple other smaller bills) do already limit freedom of speech if you consider firing to be a form of speech (which I guess it could be?).

Not directed at you gato (and possibly off topic, oops), but your post made me realize that a lot of conservatives believe that "white supremacist" deserves to be a protected class more than LGBT+, which is as stupidly funny as it is ironically painful.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Not directed at you gato (and possibly off topic, oops), but your post made me realize that a lot of conservatives believe that "white supremacist" deserves to be a protected class more than LGBT+, which is as stupidly funny as it is ironically painful.
I want to start off with this sentence because I think it's interesting. I don't really see how things can have...'different levels?' of protection, unless you meant it binary (either you are a protected class or you're not). I'm no law expert but I'm pretty sure that LGBT is now covered under Title VII of the civil rights act. Which is great! I think that everything should be protected from discrimination.

Political views being protected when it comes to work environments would be extremely difficult to do, obviously you have to fire someone who is vocal at work about their political view to deport all non whites (just like you can fire someone who is religious / non-religious harassing someone to get them to be their (non)religion), but if they aren't vocal about it but it comes out that they went to a rally that espouses those views, how could you ever expect anyone of color that works with them (really anyone who isn't a twat) to be comfortable doing their job, its probably a disservice to your own productivity. Also if sexual orientation / gender identity aren't protected from firing under federal law, in what world is a non-intrinsic trait deserving of being so (SOs religion too, but w/e).
This really is a tricky topic. I don't know if I made this clear, but political affiliation is excluded on title vii, which affects both discrimination and harassment. So you would be required by law to fire somebody harassing somebody on religious beliefs, but not so if harassing on political beliefs. And this I'm sort of talking about this in broad terms, not directly related to firing nazis right now. So if somebody comes over to a coworker's cubicle and said they're a filthy black, everything that's wrong with america, and they should go back to africa, then if that person feels harassed you're required by law to fire the offender. But if somebody says somebody is a filthy liberal, everything that's wrong with america, and they should go back to (I dunno, Sweeden?), there's no law saying that your feelings of harassment are "valid". Obviously many large corporations have additional policies on harassment but I find the exclusion of political affiliation from federal law sort of interesting.

Take for example the software engineer that google fired last week for being critical (and that's putting it pretty lightly) of the company's diversity policies. To go off your argument on opinions making people around them too uncomfortable to work, maybe his views made people around him feel very uncomfortable, and thus he is fired. But company culture differs greatly from place to place. What if Chick-Fil-A fires an executive because they're pro-LGBT, and make the hardline conservatives around them feel very uncomfortable? In my head, I don't think either person should be fired, but that's not really reality. Going through this I sort of answered my own question, and the solution is there: just let the employer decide what's right and wrong, and there can't be any protection on..."opinions" while you work at a place.

I really wanted to explore broader ideas than current events when I made the above post. Obviously I find Nazism morally wrong, and I can defend a company firing people for their opinions because it can be universal (i.e. every company can choose to fire different opinions). I find harassing people on their political beliefs at work morally wrong too, and I'd like to see federal law include it in harassment protection. But I don't think that can be done without adding it to Title VII, which would then protect people from being fired by their employers...so what's the solution?

Sorry if this got off topic.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I want to start off with this sentence because I think it's interesting. I don't really see how things can have...'different levels?' of protection, unless you meant it binary (either you are a protected class or you're not). I'm no law expert but I'm pretty sure that LGBT is now covered under Title VII of the civil rights act. Which is great! I think that everything should be protected from discrimination.
The article states the US 7th District court ruled this way (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana), which contradicts a ruling in the 11th district court (Florida, Georgia, Alabama), it is not covered under title 7 until the supreme court rules it is, so you are in fact, wrong.

Take for example the software engineer that google fired last week for being critical (and that's putting it pretty lightly) of the company's diversity policies. To go off your argument on opinions making people around them too uncomfortable to work, maybe his views made people around him feel very uncomfortable, and thus he is fired.
He got fired because he used the company distribution list to email a document criticizing company policy, its true the criticisms were political in nature, but if he had emailed "google is dong" to the rest of the company I'm pretty sure he still would have been fired. How is this fundamentally any different than that?

But company culture differs greatly from place to place. What if Chick-Fil-A fires an executive because they're pro-LGBT, and make the hardline conservatives around them feel very uncomfortable? In my head, I don't think either person should be fired, but that's not really reality. Going through this I sort of answered my own question, and the solution is there: just let the employer decide what's right and wrong, and there can't be any protection on..."opinions" while you work at a place.
I agree with the latter part of this. As for the former, I think if the executive sent an email around the company criticizing Chick-Fil-A's stance on the LGBT community I would applaud them, but also not be surprised/bitch that they got fired, because its clearly going to end up with them being fired.

But yeah this got off topic.

To answer EV's question, I don't think that free speech guarantees anonymity and I think its a really good thing that these people are being exposed for their beliefs, if you don't want to be called a white supremacist (and suffer repercussions for being one) then don't go to a rally for / with a bunch of white supremacists.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/mobi...inion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.amp.html

Wow, I couldn't believe this story when I read this-- it's proof that the "regressive left" is actually a thing, and elements of it are mainstream to a frightening degree.

I believe that the ideas on the left are the ones that we need-- vigorous regulation of our financial sector, consumer protections, universal healthcare, money out of politics, and many social programs that will grow progressively more important with technological advancement. I believe that we need to unite people, not divide them, in order to stand up for interests outside the top 1%.

But the left's obsession with identity politics and censorship is doing nothing to help the cause. It's making the left weaker, not stronger. The sjw elements of the left are sinking the progressive cause, and allowing the right the room to conflate leftists as being on the same level as the alt right or hate groups-- because they make it easy to draw a comparison.

Disgusting.

We need platforms and resources to allow ideas to come forth freely, but also clear rules of engagement and distinctions between actions that are not strictly speech.

More than anything we need to protect ABSOLUTE free speech.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
June? A little late, aren't we chou?

Identity politics is popular because it's super easy, especially in the 21st century when you can control whose opinions you listen to and filter (defriend or block) your colleagues that say something you don't want. The right does it just as much.

I'm with you. Discourse and discussion is the best way to make new solutions, rather than isolation. I don't think many people these days want to hear differing opinions (but maybe that's just a judgement of my own and I don't want to hear any different opinion that people are more open than I think they are!!!!)

Here's why I think the left is turning on itself...what happens when you spend years fighting for the advancement of society, for the reduction of oppression, and it actually...happens? Do you stop fighting? Or do you keep fighting somebody else? Sort of unrelated but in the 2 years since gay marriage was legalized, I've seen a bunch of articles like these http://www.verygoodlight.com/2017/07/09/gay-white-men/ https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.co...e-the-white-people-of-black-people-1814157214

Like I said, that's probably just because that's what I want to see, though.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/mobi...inion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.amp.html

Wow, I couldn't believe this story when I read this-- it's proof that the "regressive left" is actually a thing, and elements of it are mainstream to a frightening degree.

I believe that the ideas on the left are the ones that we need-- vigorous regulation of our financial sector, consumer protections, universal healthcare, money out of politics, and many social programs that will grow progressively more important with technological advancement. I believe that we need to unite people, not divide them, in order to stand up for interests outside the top 1%.

But the left's obsession with identity politics and censorship is doing nothing to help the cause. It's making the left weaker, not stronger. The sjw elements of the left are sinking the progressive cause, and allowing the right the room to conflate leftists as being on the same level as the alt right or hate groups-- because they make it easy to draw a comparison.

Disgusting.

We need platforms and resources to allow ideas to come forth freely, but also clear rules of engagement and distinctions between actions that are not strictly speech.

More than anything we need to protect ABSOLUTE free speech.
proof that fake news continues to power the careers of reactionaries like milo or this guy

wall street journal story by a dude tryin to make his career. it's like yall never heard of milo or all the neocon shock jocks. he literally milo-d the protestors to get famous. starting some shit abt theyre victimizing him (how exactly? never becomes clear), then making a viral video of their alleged 'misbehavior'. lol. its directly out of any conservative shock jock's agents' playbook. pick a fight then say they started it, and you get rich when it goes viral, after all theyre just a bunch of college kids they dont have time/money to confront national/international media the way a tenured professor or journeyman lecturer would. theyre easy punching bags, already a frequent strawman or trope to push an ideological agenda.

well sometimes the students do have some media access, but in my experience, there is rarely any benefit for a lowly unfunded volunteer based student org to even try to engage with media.

The administration or the students, will turn to the media according to their disadvantage, whoever is weak attempts to leverage the media, which ever has hegemony (this is a definition of hegemony almost), in the context, has little to gain by drawing attention from outside actors.

Let me think, let me think, yes ,all the interviews of the activists i personally am familiar with, done with mainstream outlets, particularly the New York Times, never went to publish.

It's okay, on the media front, a bunch of ppl who used to the organizing end up submitting to the guardian or being hired full out, so...

Here is what actually happened at evergreen:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/matt-driscoll/article153694734.html

This year, Powers says, a request was made to change things up to allow participants of color to hold Day of Absence activities on campus, while white participants who chose to participate were asked to remain off campus.

“I think that switch was inspired by a desire to affirm the belonging of students, faculty and staff of color,” Powers told me, while noting that, “Participation in the Day of Absence has always been and always will be entirely optional.”

For perspective, Powers says that about 200 staff, faculty and students — out of roughly 4,800 at Evergreen — left campus to take part in this year’s Day of Absence.

This year’s approach to the annual event is where biology professor Bret Weinstein got involved. In emails that were eventually published by the Cooper Point Journal, Weinstein objected to white students, faculty and staff being asked to leave campus, calling it “a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.”

Which brings us to last week, when demonstrations at Evergreen went viral.

Raw video from the previous day shows demonstrators angrily confronting Weinstein on campus. Some call for his immediate resignation. Others refer to him as a racist. None of it was particularly pretty nor constructive.

To take it a step farther, it was a bad look — a flawed approach, and an example of the kind of thing that makes it easy for naysayers to discredit entire movements.

The showdown eventually earned Weinstein a seat on the Tucker Carlson show, which is not the outlet I’d choose to thoughtfully air my grievances, but whatever. That’s his right.

"

once again youre welcome for me googling shit for you

as i type this trump has abandoned the paris climate agreement about an hour ago pretty much putting a lie to any claim, for example made by the author of the mindnumbing wsj bull shit linked by thesecondbest that the sciences are being censored by leftists or scientific progress in theory is impeded by social constructionists or w.e garbage victim blaming shit is being peddled in today's or tomorrow's news cycle, im just gonna ignore it, since the mods cant seem to get it up to delete ur posts atm.

for instance the whiny professor writes... (and oh wow the mods did get it up to delete the post actually, but they left gotr's bait up for some reason):


"Rather, the protests resulted from a tension that has existed throughout the entire American academy for decades: The button-down empirical and deductive fields, including all the hard sciences, have lived side by side with “critical theory,” postmodernism and its perception-based relatives. Since the creation in 1960s and ’70s of novel, justice-oriented fields, these incompatible worldviews have repelled one another. The faculty from these opposing perspectives, like blue and red voters, rarely mix in any context where reality might have to be discussed. For decades, the uneasy separation held, with the factions enduring an unhappy marriage for the good of the (college) kids."

trust me it aint post-modern perceptions that are gonna sink planet earth, but science's capitulation to environment destroying industry lol... well the perpetrators like to blame the victims im told


like i get it thesecondbest

there can never be a scandal, america is gonna be great again, trump can do no wrong and we'll all be fine as long as we retweet him right?

there will always be someone to whisper that there is actually no scandal, this is most effective when done by deflecting the scandal onto a political enemy or to advance an agenda, for example climate change is a hoax and it is actually companies trying to get you into buying bicycles (brought to you from my hometown congressman dana rorhabacher), or scientists trying to find a way to divert funding to research, or w.e it is. you deflect the scandal according to your goals, so if the context is that youre aim is to silence someone, you claim that it is you who are actually being silenced. if youre a white woman about to tell a bunch of people of color that theyre being laid off, you make sure to cry asap if they get angry with you, like bringing the news to them is actually what is really a hardship. this is a maximal deflection that is actually constantly demanded in order to maintain white/right-wing innocence.

it's cool tho i get it, you want that sweet trump money. youll have all the things that u want to, everything in the world, at any price.


since im always trying to teach ppl smthg maybe a concept from social game theory will help some in this thread think more critically, not like yall do anything but play video games anyway, not that there is rly anything wrong with that, so this is a good use of ur time even if u think im full of shit:

https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=WIFOM


WIFOM is the circular reasoning that results from trying to determine the choices of an opponent who acted with full knowledge that their behavior would be subject to scrutiny.

The term WIFOM (short for Wine In Front Of Me) is named for this scene in the 1987 movie The Princess Bride:


Westley: "All right: where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead."
Vizzini: "But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy's?"
A Practical Approach

In situations such as the movie scenario mentioned above, one often may try to use what he knows of his opponent to make a better choice. However, in some cases this leads to recursive reasoning. "

This is the linguistic crisis: the perpetrators craft narratives of their own victimhood as part of denying their crimes. They make up their own definitions of racism to obfuscate systemic inequality .The victim mentality characterized the national psyche of germany before the Nazi's seized power, despite their enduring anti-semitism (and biological racism) stemming back for centuries in some parts of germany and the entire country by the late 1800's. Same as white nationalists in america today. They think theyre something new, but theyre the oldest news, theyve been spinning the same yarn for decades. If you resist it or complain about it when shit happens, youre actually at fault, the wrong lies with you, this logic sustains the tragedy.

i dont even care if this post is coherent.
there is def a regressive left, but I would look in the mirror not at the universities
 
Last edited:

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
What part of the above story is fake news?
"Instead, he has become a victim of an increasingly widespread campaign by leftist students against anyone who dares challenge ideological orthodoxy on campus." mindnumbing nonsense, as i explained in my post. he is not a victim, he is directly benefitting from providing a convenient narrative for reactionaries of various stripes.

it continues

"This professor’s crime? He had the gall to challenge a day of racial segregation."

which is a wild mischaracterization of what actually took place, see the story i linked and bolded that you did not care to read for w.e reason:
"
Here is what actually happened at evergreen:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/matt-driscoll/article153694734.html

This year, Powers says, a request was made to change things up to allow participants of color to hold Day of Absence activities on campus, while white participants who chose to participate were asked to remain off campus.

“I think that switch was inspired by a desire to affirm the belonging of students, faculty and staff of color,” Powers told me, while noting that, “Participation in the Day of Absence has always been and always will be entirely optional.”

For perspective, Powers says that about 200 staff, faculty and students — out of roughly 4,800 at Evergreen — left campus to take part in this year’s Day of Absence.


also what happened with our argument about trajectory of violence historically GatoDelFuego
where did that go?
 
Last edited:

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
"Instead, he has become a victim of an increasingly widespread campaign by leftist students against anyone who dares challenge ideological orthodoxy on campus." mindnumbing nonsense, as i explained in my post. he is not a victim, he is directly benefitting from providing a convenient narrative for reactionaries of various stripes.
Who cares if he's a victim or not? You can profit from any opinion and appeal to any audience in today's world. There's still a bunch of students that want him to resign; isn't that the main focus? The "regressive left" exists, and is a problem for the left itself?



Don't question my reading comprehension please. I'm aware of what happened at Evergreen. I understand where you're coming from on the "fake news" thing, but I don't agree with it. Out of that whole article, it says that his crime was "challenging racial segregation"--obviously wrong, it was an optional "seminar" type day/demonstration. But the students still protested to his door. I see that as the focus of the first article in discussion here, not WHAT the professor's 'crime' was. Were the protesting students spurred on by these articles clamoring to his defense? The "regressive left" students came first. Regardless of what the news articles said about the events that unfolded, he was still labeled as a racist/undesirable by the protesting students.

I got sick of the argument on violence when you quoted an entire Wikipedia page.
 
Last edited:

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Who cares if he's a victim or not? You can profit from any opinion and appeal to any audience in today's world. There's still a bunch of students that want him to resign; isn't that the main focus? The "regressive left" exists, and is a problem for the left itself?
Who cares if they want him to resign? I want trump to resign? Am I victimizing him? It does matter, messing with the language of victims and perpetrators obfuscates power relations.

well if you have a conspiracy about a regressive left victimizing people and I am showing how that narrative is totally false and obfuscates what is actually taking place on America's college campuses. College students have no power to actually victimize people, but the story that they are generates a paranoia that fits in conveniently with reactionary political aims that ascendent in our current American government.

just read the news dude, read what these people who are making these claims think and you'll see it is illogical in the face of the actual circumstances:

here is what universities are actually doing:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lsea-manning-hits-back-at-traitor-accusations

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/full-speaker-list-released-free-speech-week-uc-berkeley/



read this too, since Im realizing that if I don't post all the news that occurs each week, someone else will brainwash you with nonsense that you aren't critical enough to see through and im p sure this will be one of the silly myths you buy into: that the left isn't good at trade and thus can't get trump supporters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/...manufacturing-in-far-right-politics.html?_r=0
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
June? A little late, aren't we chou?

Identity politics is popular because it's super easy, especially in the 21st century when you can control whose opinions you listen to and filter (defriend or block) your colleagues that say something you don't want. The right does it just as much.

I'm with you. Discourse and discussion is the best way to make new solutions, rather than isolation. I don't think many people these days want to hear differing opinions (but maybe that's just a judgement of my own and I don't want to hear any different opinion that people are more open than I think they are!!!!)

Here's why I think the left is turning on itself...what happens when you spend years fighting for the advancement of society, for the reduction of oppression, and it actually...happens? Do you stop fighting? Or do you keep fighting somebody else? Sort of unrelated but in the 2 years since gay marriage was legalized, I've seen a bunch of articles like these http://www.verygoodlight.com/2017/07/09/gay-white-men/ https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.co...e-the-white-people-of-black-people-1814157214

Like I said, that's probably just because that's what I want to see, though.
I know... I came to know of this case now, late, but it blew my mind.

I've been disgusted by many similar stories before, like the Google memo (the moment when you actually read the memo) and what happened a while back at my alma mater CMC-- but this! First time to see the SJW mob setting up the witch-burner for a genuine, Bernie-voting, progressive-- and because he spoke out against racism no less.

Insane.

Now I absolutely agree that this is a game the right plays as well and that is untenable in the same way-- but now we've both said "the same way"--

To someone who believes that evils (many unintended perhaps, many insidious...) of extreme conservatism (gov bought by interests and kept out of protecting people or making markets more fair) are a major problem, and we have actual bigots pushing up the bigot in the White House--

It's a scary time for the left to be stupidly conceding the moral high ground and make itself ever-more conflatable to those on the right--the evils on one side the same as on the other-- over micro aggressions.

Hillary and Trump are not equatibly bad for instance-- not even close-- but then and now the left chooses this dumbest way to lower itself to the where the comparison is easier to make.
 
Last edited:

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
How about saying it like this--

The "right" as a brand, now owns free speech-- owns the mantle as protectors of one these most fundamental democratic liberties.

And the left makes it impossible to argue otherwise.

How that plays out in trying to form the coalition for liberal policies that will actually make people's lives better and their government more functional-- it doesn't look good. People care about the constitution, and the first means a LOT more than the second.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Chou Toshio can you point to where the professor's 1st amendment rights were violated? Or are you saying that you don't think students should be allowed to protest his statements using their first amendment rights?
How about saying it like this--

The "right" as a brand, now owns free speech-- owns the mantle as protectors of one these most fundamental democratic liberties.

And the left makes it impossible to argue otherwise.

How that plays out in trying to form the coalition for liberal policies that will actually make people's lives better and their government more functional-- it doesn't look good. People care about the constitution, and the first means a LOT more than the second.
The people in tears (literally) over a football player kneeling during the national anthem are hardly the owners of freedom of speech. And that's playing by your (completely incorrect) definition of freedom of speech.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
The Google memo dudebro exercised his FoS and then Google responded with their own. I don't see a problem here.
I can't speak for Chou but in my opinion the issue is intent. It's certainly within google's right to fire the man for writing the memo. The question is, should they?

It's within chick-fil-a's rights to fund anti-gay advertisements and lobbies. Should they?

It's within reddit and facebook's rights to filter right-wing news from users. Should they?

It's within students to protest against their professor and call him a racist. Should they? I see the original article as an example of misguided anger. The professor is just as left-leaning as the protesters, but they were quick to label him as the enemy. Is that healthy for free speech in America? Say one thing that a group of people disagree with and you're instantly the bad guy?
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
the context behind students calling out a professor is inverted compared to the two examples you led with. The power dynamic between an employee/user and a corporation disproportionately weighs to the latter, so their deliberations ought to be viewed with that in mind (they hold larger leverage)... compared to the deliberations of what a student should do v/s a prof/academic institution wherein they are on the opposite end if the power dynamic. Intent is informed by power and to disregard it is to deal in blind absolutes.

I don't have a firm opinion for (or against) the point you are making but the framing is problematic and sort of begs the question.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top