6 ms·

[flagged]

fallingknife 4y ago
Your comment seems to boil down to you thinking that you will lose the argument to the other side, so you need to use "suppression."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
Dorian Abbot is a perfect example of why you're wrong. He opposes affirmative action and as a result got cancelled at MIT for a _completely_ unrelated talk about climate and life on other planets. If you yourself disagree with him and do not want to participate in the talk, fine. don't watch it, don't listen to it, don't attend it, and use YOUR speech to recommend others do the same. What happened here is that he got cancelled so that those who _WANTED_ to associate no longer could. This is not about association, and it's not about speech, it's about preventing others from hearing and it's about harming him for daring to have that opinion. When the cancel culture stops happening, THEN I'll start believing when people say the things you're trying to say here. Not before.
- komali2 4y ago
  I looked into this Dorian person, and it appears we have different definitions of "cancelled," as this person did give a talk at MIT, at a different building than originally planned. It seems this person has made a handsome life being a spokesperson for conservative denial of systemic racism in America, I don't see someone actually harmed or "cancelled." Also it sounds like students did exactly what MIT approves: they protested. For whatever reason the University decided then to move the venue. What exactly is the issue you have with this scenario?
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - komali2 4y ago
      What does cancelled mean? Who's in your in group? Any communists? Anybody that attended a black lives matter protest? Check his Twitter, he calls for color blindness, denies that black students face any different obstacles than white ones, etc.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        [flagged]
        jensensbutton 4y ago
        gp asked specifically what "cancelled" means. You seem to be trying to avoid providing any definition and instead creating and attacking straw men based on your imagination of a leftist argument. Get a grip then respond.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        And I suppose if I felt it was honestly asked I might respond to it.
        komali2 4y ago
        In our various conversations on this thread, you're continually posting in bad faith, because I and a few others aren't granting you your base assumptions. I've found it to be both enlightening and effective in these kinds of conversations to make sure to ask very simple questions about what we're really talking about. Why? Because for example I often have people say to my face that the american democrat party is a communist party. Hah. Or, more grim: that queer people are groomers. Terrifying. So it's an entirely fair question to ask you what you mean by "cancelled." I genuinely don't know. You said a professor was cancelled - but the professor was able to give a speech at the same university. I don't understand! I really don't! What does "cancelled" really mean? Because if you can't answer that, maybe this thing you fear doesn't actually exist. Maybe you really are just functioning as a reactionary enforcer of status quo and lashing out against actual counter-cultural speech, against arguments that are actually being "cancelled" by you and those that support your position. The same for gender. You said to me on another comment, that "you aren't talking about gender identity," but you earlier in the same chain said "care givers tend to be women." Yet it's as obvious to me that that is a circular definition of a gender completely detached from biological markers ("women are caregivers") as it is to you that men are big masculine lumberjacks. So instead of letting you get away with, I don't know, some kind of assumptive bias? Begging the question? Argument to tradition? Instead I'm simply asking you to demonstrate why it's acceptable to assume "care givers tend to be women." Personally as a man I reject this because it leads to pretty shitty outcomes like me being given stink eye from people when I'm "alone" at a children's playground... until my kid runs up to me. To give a concrete example. Not to mention I reject that "race car drivers tend to be men" for the obvious nod towards the very annoying stereotype that women are worse drivers than men. Ugh. I'll give you enough good faith to assume that was unintentional on your part. TLDR you presented a presumptive conservative position and got reactionary when asked, by different people (annoyance at me is normal, I am an annoying person), very simple questions about terms setting and definitions. So? What's up with your ideas? They don't stand to scrutiny? I mean you're doing what your position tends to accuse my position of, which is for me why I put my foot down so damn hard in conversations like this: you're acting offended, you're responding rudely and, frankly, irrationally, and straight up I don't see any rhetorical, logical, ethical, deductive, or evidential basis for the broad vaguely conservative smear I find your belief system to be.
thewanderer1983 4y ago
You need to spend less time in your emotional echo chamber. Much of what you are saying isn't grounded in what is happening, Matt Walsh doesn't call violence on campus.He has a youtube channel. Why not at least watch one of the videos. Your point about trans people and toilets doesn't address what is actually being said or the concerns around it.
- astrange 4y ago
  Matt Walsh says things on Twitter that resemble the GP comment more than yours, though he’s never been moderated or un-checkmarked for it. His reaction to a shooting at a drag queen event was to call everyone there a pedophile. Though his more notable takes are that Russia would win a war against the US because our recruiting ads are gay: https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1496942410538131468 https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1496942410538131468 and that time when Trump wanted a photo op at the church across from the White House and had the priests tear gassed, that they deserved it because Episcopalians are Satanists. (Can’t find that one.) IIRC also said yoga, anime, Ouija boards, and the Persona series were all Satanist. Maybe I’m just confused and he’s some kind of Catholic insult comic? (Well, he’d be right about Persona.)
  - vxNsr 4y ago
    Your (and liberalism in general) inability to understand humor when it comes from someone you dislike is quite concerning. I recently watched a socialist YouTuber argue against Ayn Rand because someone might read her books and fail to understand it was fiction. And thus her books should be banned. That’s an argument against all fiction books but he made this argument with a totally straight face while speaking against the dangers of capitalism in general.
    - astrange 4y ago
      Is “oh those Episcopalians, so Satanic” a joke? I don’t think you can have a joke with the word “Episcopalian” in it. It’s just not a funny word, I mean, it’s a lot of effort to type. The rest don’t appear to have a punchline either - well, unless he was the punchline for the Russian one. I think most Catholic humor is about guilt or their mom’s statue collections rather than calling people pedophiles, maybe he can try that. Or call them angelic instead.
malwrar 4y ago
> These people have the advantage of having abandoned civility, but they still get to weaponize civility to make sure their voice is heard without interruption, without immediate critique or debate, without consequence. This sounds similar to conservatives/right-ish people complaining about cancel culture. Generally most of your text strikes me as hyperbole, having actually made an effort to understand conservatives despite not really falling into their camp. Nothing you assert sounds familiar to me. This matters to me because the thing that made me listen to conservative voices in the first place was that their self-expressed beliefs never lined up with what people told me they thought. Crying wolf etc. At worst they’re religious freaks that don’t want to call a gay marriage a marriage (petty) and think trans stuff is a sexual fetish (out of touch). Yet I’m to believe in 2022 I’m going to get lynched for liking dick. I actively stopped caring about politics bc I can never tell anymore when people are trying to freak me out to get me to listen to them. This being said as someone who grew up gay and scared in the traditional underbelly of the US. Some specific reactions follow: > I don't agree with what this guy is saying about wanting trans people dragged away by cops and beaten Are you referring to some specific event, or is this just what you believe all non-lefty people secretly want? In what context, just generally if a born-X person publicly presents as Y? This version of trans opposition is foreign to me and makes no sense. > Leftists don't want Matt Walsh giving a talk at a university because he's going to do what he always does and in some form call for violence against LGBT people. I’ve only ever seen his JRE interview, do you mean explicit, general advocacy of literal physical violence against LGBT persons? I think he exploits general confusion around gender vs sex and concern for children, but I’ve never heard anyone advocate anything close to that. Matt specifically comes off as a troll. > So... when is that? When will we get to debate Steven Crowder in a public space? Doesn’t he literally go to public spaces with signs saying “change my mind”? > Leftists are forced to lash out at the false definition of civility that lets people say "I dunno, trans people are icky, let's just not let them pee in public,” but doesn't let people say "that's fucked up, where are trans people supposed to pee then?" In the bathroom associated with their biological sex? Also who is preventing trans activists from speaking? I think you have the power dynamics mixed up, every major US institution appears on-board with affirming trans identity. Honestly I don’t really understand why women need a whole separate bathroom to begin with.
- 4y ago
vxNsr 4y ago
Just so we’re clear, Matt Walsh has never said any of the things you straw manned, he has never called for violence against anyone, explicitly or implicitly, I’ve seen many people call for violence against him. In one breath you decry the supposed calls for violence against your chosen victims and in the very next sentence claim you must commit violence against others because it’s your only option. Do you not see the extreme irony in that? You’re saying not only are you alone allowed free speech but also you alone are allowed to decide when to commit acts of violence, lest those you disagree with are allowed to speak and say something you find unacceptable and thus “verbal violence”.
- komali2 4y ago
  https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/10/20/matt-walsh-police-need-to-break-down-the-doors-of-drag-shows/ https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/10/20/matt-walsh-police... > . For one thing, the pronoun situation is all over the map, okay? It’s not clear of the various people mentioned here, which are actually females, though they all use female pronouns. > the adults are creeps and degenerates and worse either way, > I was not previously familiar with the term drag mom, though from context it seems that this is just another way of describing a professional groomer. > And just like cancer, stopping it is not a gentle or a painless process. The farther along the cancer is, the more aggressive you have to be in fighting it. Culturally, we are approaching, if we haven’t already reached, a terminal state, which means we have to be all the more aggressive, which calls for two things. > You know, this doesn’t stop until police are breaking down the doors at these places and carting the adults away in handcuffs. Charge them all as pedophiles. Throw them in prison, and whenever they get out, if they do get out, put them on the sex offender registry for life. - Matt Walsh on drag show performers > In one breath you decry the supposed calls for violence against your chosen victims and in the very next sentence claim you must commit violence against others because it’s your only option. Do you not see the extreme irony in that? I find it ironic that you're arguing from a position that usually rejects the notion that speech can be considered violence, then accusing me in a post where I never mention physical violence, only forms of speech, as calling for violence against the intolerant. > You’re saying not only are you alone allowed free speech but also you alone are allowed to decide when to commit acts of violence, lest those you disagree with are allowed to speak and say something you find unacceptable and thus “verbal violence”. Doesn't need to be me, but if you can't tell the difference between "intolerance," and "tolerant, yet intolerant of the intolerant," that says more about you than me. Do you want to give some examples of people you think were unfairly labeled as intolerant? Maybe some people you thought were "cancelled?" I use quotes because I still haven't found a good definition for that word, people just seem to use it.
lezojeda 4y ago
>Leftists are forced to lash out at the false definition of civility that lets people say "I dunno, trans people are icky, let's just not let them pee in public," but doesn't let people say "that's fucked up, where are trans people supposed to pee then?" Because these counter points don't get platformed nearly as much, either because of conservatism or, cynically, because what they have to say is less surprising / offensive / infuriating and thus they won't generate as much attention / clicks / eyeballs / outrage / engagement. They just want us dead, literally, read it a hundred times. Whether is being killed or suicide, it's the same. Sadly we are an absurd minority (<0.2%) and the tides are already turning for their relief. I gladly don't live in the USA, I would be planning to leave if that were the case

[flagged]

Your comment seems to boil down to you thinking that you will lose the argument to the other side, so you need to use "suppression."

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

Dorian Abbot is a perfect example of why you're wrong. He opposes affirmative action and as a result got cancelled at MIT for a _completely_ unrelated talk about climate and life on other planets. If you yourself disagree with him and do not want to participate in the talk, fine. don't watch it, don't listen to it, don't attend it, and use YOUR speech to recommend others do the same. What happened here is that he got cancelled so that those who _WANTED_ to associate no longer could. This is not about association, and it's not about speech, it's about preventing others from hearing and it's about harming him for daring to have that opinion. When the cancel culture stops happening, THEN I'll start believing when people say the things you're trying to say here. Not before.

komali2 4y ago
I looked into this Dorian person, and it appears we have different definitions of "cancelled," as this person did give a talk at MIT, at a different building than originally planned. It seems this person has made a handsome life being a spokesperson for conservative denial of systemic racism in America, I don't see someone actually harmed or "cancelled." Also it sounds like students did exactly what MIT approves: they protested. For whatever reason the University decided then to move the venue. What exactly is the issue you have with this scenario?
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - komali2 4y ago
    What does cancelled mean? Who's in your in group? Any communists? Anybody that attended a black lives matter protest? Check his Twitter, he calls for color blindness, denies that black students face any different obstacles than white ones, etc.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - jensensbutton 4y ago
        gp asked specifically what "cancelled" means. You seem to be trying to avoid providing any definition and instead creating and attacking straw men based on your imagination of a leftist argument. Get a grip then respond.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        And I suppose if I felt it was honestly asked I might respond to it.
        komali2 4y ago
        In our various conversations on this thread, you're continually posting in bad faith, because I and a few others aren't granting you your base assumptions. I've found it to be both enlightening and effective in these kinds of conversations to make sure to ask very simple questions about what we're really talking about. Why? Because for example I often have people say to my face that the american democrat party is a communist party. Hah. Or, more grim: that queer people are groomers. Terrifying. So it's an entirely fair question to ask you what you mean by "cancelled." I genuinely don't know. You said a professor was cancelled - but the professor was able to give a speech at the same university. I don't understand! I really don't! What does "cancelled" really mean? Because if you can't answer that, maybe this thing you fear doesn't actually exist. Maybe you really are just functioning as a reactionary enforcer of status quo and lashing out against actual counter-cultural speech, against arguments that are actually being "cancelled" by you and those that support your position. The same for gender. You said to me on another comment, that "you aren't talking about gender identity," but you earlier in the same chain said "care givers tend to be women." Yet it's as obvious to me that that is a circular definition of a gender completely detached from biological markers ("women are caregivers") as it is to you that men are big masculine lumberjacks. So instead of letting you get away with, I don't know, some kind of assumptive bias? Begging the question? Argument to tradition? Instead I'm simply asking you to demonstrate why it's acceptable to assume "care givers tend to be women." Personally as a man I reject this because it leads to pretty shitty outcomes like me being given stink eye from people when I'm "alone" at a children's playground... until my kid runs up to me. To give a concrete example. Not to mention I reject that "race car drivers tend to be men" for the obvious nod towards the very annoying stereotype that women are worse drivers than men. Ugh. I'll give you enough good faith to assume that was unintentional on your part. TLDR you presented a presumptive conservative position and got reactionary when asked, by different people (annoyance at me is normal, I am an annoying person), very simple questions about terms setting and definitions. So? What's up with your ideas? They don't stand to scrutiny? I mean you're doing what your position tends to accuse my position of, which is for me why I put my foot down so damn hard in conversations like this: you're acting offended, you're responding rudely and, frankly, irrationally, and straight up I don't see any rhetorical, logical, ethical, deductive, or evidential basis for the broad vaguely conservative smear I find your belief system to be.

thewanderer1983 4y ago

You need to spend less time in your emotional echo chamber. Much of what you are saying isn't grounded in what is happening, Matt Walsh doesn't call violence on campus.He has a youtube channel. Why not at least watch one of the videos. Your point about trans people and toilets doesn't address what is actually being said or the concerns around it.

astrange 4y ago
Matt Walsh says things on Twitter that resemble the GP comment more than yours, though he’s never been moderated or un-checkmarked for it. His reaction to a shooting at a drag queen event was to call everyone there a pedophile. Though his more notable takes are that Russia would win a war against the US because our recruiting ads are gay: https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1496942410538131468 https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1496942410538131468 and that time when Trump wanted a photo op at the church across from the White House and had the priests tear gassed, that they deserved it because Episcopalians are Satanists. (Can’t find that one.) IIRC also said yoga, anime, Ouija boards, and the Persona series were all Satanist. Maybe I’m just confused and he’s some kind of Catholic insult comic? (Well, he’d be right about Persona.)
- vxNsr 4y ago
  Your (and liberalism in general) inability to understand humor when it comes from someone you dislike is quite concerning. I recently watched a socialist YouTuber argue against Ayn Rand because someone might read her books and fail to understand it was fiction. And thus her books should be banned. That’s an argument against all fiction books but he made this argument with a totally straight face while speaking against the dangers of capitalism in general.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Is “oh those Episcopalians, so Satanic” a joke? I don’t think you can have a joke with the word “Episcopalian” in it. It’s just not a funny word, I mean, it’s a lot of effort to type. The rest don’t appear to have a punchline either - well, unless he was the punchline for the Russian one. I think most Catholic humor is about guilt or their mom’s statue collections rather than calling people pedophiles, maybe he can try that. Or call them angelic instead.

malwrar 4y ago

> These people have the advantage of having abandoned civility, but they still get to weaponize civility to make sure their voice is heard without interruption, without immediate critique or debate, without consequence. This sounds similar to conservatives/right-ish people complaining about cancel culture. Generally most of your text strikes me as hyperbole, having actually made an effort to understand conservatives despite not really falling into their camp. Nothing you assert sounds familiar to me. This matters to me because the thing that made me listen to conservative voices in the first place was that their self-expressed beliefs never lined up with what people told me they thought. Crying wolf etc. At worst they’re religious freaks that don’t want to call a gay marriage a marriage (petty) and think trans stuff is a sexual fetish (out of touch). Yet I’m to believe in 2022 I’m going to get lynched for liking dick. I actively stopped caring about politics bc I can never tell anymore when people are trying to freak me out to get me to listen to them. This being said as someone who grew up gay and scared in the traditional underbelly of the US. Some specific reactions follow: > I don't agree with what this guy is saying about wanting trans people dragged away by cops and beaten Are you referring to some specific event, or is this just what you believe all non-lefty people secretly want? In what context, just generally if a born-X person publicly presents as Y? This version of trans opposition is foreign to me and makes no sense. > Leftists don't want Matt Walsh giving a talk at a university because he's going to do what he always does and in some form call for violence against LGBT people. I’ve only ever seen his JRE interview, do you mean explicit, general advocacy of literal physical violence against LGBT persons? I think he exploits general confusion around gender vs sex and concern for children, but I’ve never heard anyone advocate anything close to that. Matt specifically comes off as a troll. > So... when is that? When will we get to debate Steven Crowder in a public space? Doesn’t he literally go to public spaces with signs saying “change my mind”? > Leftists are forced to lash out at the false definition of civility that lets people say "I dunno, trans people are icky, let's just not let them pee in public,” but doesn't let people say "that's fucked up, where are trans people supposed to pee then?" In the bathroom associated with their biological sex? Also who is preventing trans activists from speaking? I think you have the power dynamics mixed up, every major US institution appears on-board with affirming trans identity. Honestly I don’t really understand why women need a whole separate bathroom to begin with.

4y ago

vxNsr 4y ago

Just so we’re clear, Matt Walsh has never said any of the things you straw manned, he has never called for violence against anyone, explicitly or implicitly, I’ve seen many people call for violence against him. In one breath you decry the supposed calls for violence against your chosen victims and in the very next sentence claim you must commit violence against others because it’s your only option. Do you not see the extreme irony in that? You’re saying not only are you alone allowed free speech but also you alone are allowed to decide when to commit acts of violence, lest those you disagree with are allowed to speak and say something you find unacceptable and thus “verbal violence”.

komali2 4y ago
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/10/20/matt-walsh-police-need-to-break-down-the-doors-of-drag-shows/ https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/10/20/matt-walsh-police... > . For one thing, the pronoun situation is all over the map, okay? It’s not clear of the various people mentioned here, which are actually females, though they all use female pronouns. > the adults are creeps and degenerates and worse either way, > I was not previously familiar with the term drag mom, though from context it seems that this is just another way of describing a professional groomer. > And just like cancer, stopping it is not a gentle or a painless process. The farther along the cancer is, the more aggressive you have to be in fighting it. Culturally, we are approaching, if we haven’t already reached, a terminal state, which means we have to be all the more aggressive, which calls for two things. > You know, this doesn’t stop until police are breaking down the doors at these places and carting the adults away in handcuffs. Charge them all as pedophiles. Throw them in prison, and whenever they get out, if they do get out, put them on the sex offender registry for life. - Matt Walsh on drag show performers > In one breath you decry the supposed calls for violence against your chosen victims and in the very next sentence claim you must commit violence against others because it’s your only option. Do you not see the extreme irony in that? I find it ironic that you're arguing from a position that usually rejects the notion that speech can be considered violence, then accusing me in a post where I never mention physical violence, only forms of speech, as calling for violence against the intolerant. > You’re saying not only are you alone allowed free speech but also you alone are allowed to decide when to commit acts of violence, lest those you disagree with are allowed to speak and say something you find unacceptable and thus “verbal violence”. Doesn't need to be me, but if you can't tell the difference between "intolerance," and "tolerant, yet intolerant of the intolerant," that says more about you than me. Do you want to give some examples of people you think were unfairly labeled as intolerant? Maybe some people you thought were "cancelled?" I use quotes because I still haven't found a good definition for that word, people just seem to use it.

lezojeda 4y ago

>Leftists are forced to lash out at the false definition of civility that lets people say "I dunno, trans people are icky, let's just not let them pee in public," but doesn't let people say "that's fucked up, where are trans people supposed to pee then?" Because these counter points don't get platformed nearly as much, either because of conservatism or, cynically, because what they have to say is less surprising / offensive / infuriating and thus they won't generate as much attention / clicks / eyeballs / outrage / engagement. They just want us dead, literally, read it a hundred times. Whether is being killed or suicide, it's the same. Sadly we are an absurd minority (<0.2%) and the tides are already turning for their relief. I gladly don't live in the USA, I would be planning to leave if that were the case