4 ms·

You have to take into account, though: they won. What's interesting to me is that reading through this thread, particularly Sartre's description of anti-Semite

You have to take into account, though: they won. What's interesting to me is that reading through this thread, particularly Sartre's description of anti-Semite thinking, is that the exact same thoughts are voiced in the rightist spheres I inhabit, but referring to the left. Particularly regarding discourse and respect (or lack thereof) for it. In fact, it gets interesting when I think about speakers being no-platformed of late. When, IDK, Richard Spencer or someone gets protested away from some university, is this an example of: - blatant disrespect for words, as shown through Spencer's poisoning the well as Sartre describes, or - blatant disrespect for words, as shown through him not being allowed to speak? It is a strange world indeed where both sides, referring to the same incident, take completely different positions, both in the name of free speech.

nl 9y ago
Given that Spencer is an anti-Semite I'm not sure that is a particularly tough question. It's exactly what Sartre described. One can still disagree with the decision of course, but there is no doubt which way Sartre would lean.
mlloyd 9y ago
Yeah, totally agree on that. The worse part is that you can't offer a solid argument without being called biased by the other side. I think this is one where you just have to call them wrong and tell them to do one if they disagree. Hate speech just isn't something that we have to accommodate, nor do we have to give credence to the arguments for it.
bitwize 9y ago
> What's interesting to me is that reading through this thread, particularly Sartre's description of anti-Semite thinking, is that the exact same thoughts are voiced in the rightist spheres I inhabit, but referring to the left. Particularly regarding discourse and respect (or lack thereof) for it. Probably because of postmodernism, which is perhaps best interpreted as "defense against the dark arts" for the left. The "disrespect for words" and meaning itself, a hallmark of postmodernism, has its origins in propaganda techniques developed by corporations for marketing purposes, and was weaponized by the right long before it ever got picked up by the left.

nl 9y ago

Given that Spencer is an anti-Semite I'm not sure that is a particularly tough question. It's exactly what Sartre described. One can still disagree with the decision of course, but there is no doubt which way Sartre would lean.

mlloyd 9y ago

Yeah, totally agree on that. The worse part is that you can't offer a solid argument without being called biased by the other side. I think this is one where you just have to call them wrong and tell them to do one if they disagree. Hate speech just isn't something that we have to accommodate, nor do we have to give credence to the arguments for it.

bitwize 9y ago

> What's interesting to me is that reading through this thread, particularly Sartre's description of anti-Semite thinking, is that the exact same thoughts are voiced in the rightist spheres I inhabit, but referring to the left. Particularly regarding discourse and respect (or lack thereof) for it. Probably because of postmodernism, which is perhaps best interpreted as "defense against the dark arts" for the left. The "disrespect for words" and meaning itself, a hallmark of postmodernism, has its origins in propaganda techniques developed by corporations for marketing purposes, and was weaponized by the right long before it ever got picked up by the left.