Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: "NO FREE SPEECH FOR HATE SPEECH"

  1. #51
    Member
    Type
    INFJ
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by Sistamatic View Post
    All good points. Another problem is that the issues behind most protests are usually more nuanced than can be presented in protest format, which often leads to the need for overtly polarized polemics. I see the reason for protests, but they are but one step in a far more complicated process if any change is to be had. I'm far too literal to be an effective protester. I'd have to put a paragraph of fine print with every sign before I could bring myself to hoist it in public.
    absolutely!

    Most issues are far more nuanced then the corporate media presents them as

    Identarian politics is all about splitting humanity up into different groups who then all see the world in overly simplified ways

    Some of the narratives i've seen pushed online are scarily over-simplified

  2. #52
    chaotic neutral shitpost
    Type
    xxxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    shrubland
    Posts
    7,444
    Quote Originally Posted by kari View Post
    You can respond to me directly instead of being passive, you know...

    I never not defined my political views. It's just that I don't blindly accept or reject x political view just because it happens to be part of the leftist or right schema. I also think it's better to remain undecided than hastily attaching onto a presupposition.

    Also, actually read the wiki page you posted. It makes a distinction between a true compromise and a false compromise. The fallacy is the assumption that every compromise is true.

    See also:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
    i’m posting from phone & talking generally which is why i’m not quoting you. and of course i read the page. i wasn’t expecting responses, just putting it out there.

    tbh i found it quite funny to come across it, cuz you see it everywhere in political discussions.

    i might get back to this later, busy now
    WORKJIGGLYPLAY
    HARDxBUTTxHARD

  3. #53
    chaotic neutral shitpost
    Type
    xxxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    shrubland
    Posts
    7,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    Not true. An undefined political view is infinitely more defensible than a simply defined one. There's nothing there to assault. If your goal is to be unbothered, it's far more rational than aligning yourself with a hashtag.
    where are you getting the idea that defined views are “simple”? by defining i mean having conviction and declaring a position after thorough investigation, not defining for the sake of argument.

    yeah, it’s generally difficult to attack—or defend—an argument lacking conviction and solidity. it’s not more rational, the association is a non sequitur. that’s the second part of what i was addressing.

    (ok, this is too difficult from my phone)
    WORKJIGGLYPLAY
    HARDxBUTTxHARD

  4. #54
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,341
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by jigglypuff View Post
    where are you getting the idea that defined views are “simple”? by defining i mean having conviction and declaring a position after thorough investigation, not defining for the sake of argument.

    yeah, it’s generally difficult to attack—or defend—an argument lacking conviction and solidity. it’s not more rational, the association is a non sequitur. that’s the second part of what i was addressing.

    (ok, this is too difficult from my phone)
    I am getting the idea from the words you used: "simply defined".

    It is more rational to not take a stance if your goal is to not be bothered by other people challenging you for your views. To say otherwise is like saying the rational way to avoid a barfight is to start one.
    Most of time, when people ask why something terrible happened, they don't realize they are looking for someone to blame.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  5. #55
    chaotic neutral shitpost
    Type
    xxxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    shrubland
    Posts
    7,444
    not on my phone anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    I am getting the idea from the words you used: "simply defined".
    yah, but by that phrasing i wasn't saying "defined views are simple views."

    to be more specific about what exactly i'm criticizing, it's this staunch middle ground view that's really a character judgment, made with the pretense that one is more "rational" than other people. it's not more rational to not define where you stand, which is all i meant to say. i'm not saying that people who do this are necessarily apolitical, but they might argue as if they are. i have no problem with people who are truly exploring different views, but these people don't start fights.

    It is more rational to not take a stance if your goal is to not be bothered by other people challenging you for your views. To say otherwise is like saying the rational way to avoid a barfight is to start one.
    oh, i get it as a strategy. just don't respect it.
    WORKJIGGLYPLAY
    HARDxBUTTxHARD

  6. #56
    I like big buts Sir Caveat's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,597
    What SJW Orwellian nonsense. Paraphrasing: "Because of the power dynamic, allowing certain ideas to be presented by their proponents is not conducive to real debate. Equal freedom of speech for all sides effectively silences those who are inherently less powerful because of their identity. In this case, allowing Jordan Peterson to be heard debating has the effect of silencing those with a trans or non-binary sexual identity."

    The context is that a Canadian college teaching assisant, Lindsay Sheperd, showed a video in class of Jordan Peterson debating a proponent of a law that would require people to address other people by their preferred pronoun. Lindsay recorded the school's safe space police lecturing her on the dangers of exposing college students to the "alt right" side of the debate. These SJWs are protesting a subsequent free speech rally at which Lindsay spoke.


  7. #57
    schlemiel Faust's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,699
    Equal freedom of speech for all sides effectively silences those who are inherently less powerful because of their identity
    There's a loaded sentence for you. Silencing is the most meaningless, unsubstantiated piece of modern rhetoric there is. We'll be well rid of it.

    It's already been said, but this is ultimately about exerting control; a persisting opportunity exploited as any and all ideas from go unchallenged, the same old Emperor-has-no-clothes effect as we accept that whatever the needle lands on is transgressive. Pronouns already include an appropriate catch-all for what might be considered non-normative, but with that aside language across the board expresses and attributes masculine and feminine qualities to abstract concepts and sometimes things; does it then follow for the entire French language get revised to apply alternative gender qualities to known objects? I mean, why not, how else do we decide what "hurts" and what doesn't except by which is dictated out of their ass. All it really takes is for someone to say it hurts them that a fucking table is feminine. If that sounds ridiculous, it's no more so than what's currently going on.

    The notion of correct pronoun usage jeopardizing one's identity is a farce, but even still all you need to know about the extent to which the pervaders believe their own bs lies in the following: ask someone with so-called non-binary gender what their name is. The one they chose. It will undoubtedly either be a masculine or feminine name, as is popularly understood, rather than something utterly made-up (like the "new pronouns"). One would think a name would carry the most weight with regard to personal identity, which is why transgendered people change it. The fact that their name has a clear gendered characteristic does not seem to "hurt" them or "deny" their identity or even register as a concern, in fact it's embraced, or at worst accepted as a product of the nature of language in those instances. There the rationale happily follows in step with what everyone realizes anyway, that our decisions and behavior express our identity. "Oh you know, Michael doesn't need to be a masculine name" yes? well it is, and that doesn't seem to matter. It follows that "he" should matter even less. Your identity is not anyone else's problem.
    Last edited by Faust; 12-03-2017 at 07:22 PM.
    "All my heroes are dead" - John Zorn

    "It's not selfish if you hate yourself"

  8. #58
    I like big buts Sir Caveat's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Faust View Post
    Silencing is the most meaningless, unsubstantiated piece of modern rhetoric there is.
    It's an accusation up there with fascism, in the sense that it's often made un-ironically by people who themselves are actually the practitioners and proponents of silencing and forcible suppression of opposing views.

    It's already been said, but this is ultimately about exerting control
    Yep. Their worldview is focused on group power.
    Last edited by Sir Caveat; 12-03-2017 at 08:51 PM.

  9. #59
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,341
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    What SJW Orwellian nonsense. Paraphrasing: "Because of the power dynamic, allowing certain ideas to be presented by their proponents is not conducive to real debate. Equal freedom of speech for all sides effectively silences those who are inherently less powerful because of their identity."
    If allowing someone else to speak an opposing view decimates yours, maybe you shouldn't be speaking because your arguments are bad.
    Most of time, when people ask why something terrible happened, they don't realize they are looking for someone to blame.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  10. #60
    Banned
    Type
    ISFP
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,315
    this guy jordan is not transphobic. more likely he's really tired of having to accommodate to stupidity of the "everyone's opinion is equal" but hey, beware because you might go to jail for thinking too much. yeah because if the majority cannot grasp any meaning from your words then you are a bad thing.
    i'm getting tired of this topic anyway, i think everytime i see some social brainless thing like what's happening in this video i just wanna vomit.
    this is my last post on gender / sjws / etc.

Similar Threads

  1. "The Happiness Trap" and "Acceptance & Commitment Therapy"
    By JohnClay in forum Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-11-2017, 07:09 PM
  2. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 08-26-2017, 06:58 PM
  3. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 11-13-2016, 05:26 AM
  4. Replies: 199
    Last Post: 06-18-2015, 03:09 PM
  5. "Fake" progressivism and "genuine" conservatism-- why?
    By Blorg in forum News, Culture & History
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-21-2014, 08:32 PM

Posting Permissions

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