“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Emily's Cat said:
It's not me is it? It's usually me :( but I think I managed to NOT tank this one.
Click to expand...

No of course not, it's me. Or rather, it didn't get wrecked. They just don't like it when those damn leftists get to counter their arguments. The irony that their entire case against those damn leftists is built on the notion that it's the damn leftists who are intolerant of speech they disagree with, is of course completely lost on them.
 
dudalb said:
Nope, it's not you,although I could criticize you for feeding the troll....
Click to expand...

In defense of troll-feeding:

Why not?

The only thing that makes one a troll is that they're further out from center than most. We have posters here who are just as far to the right, and we engage with them all the time.

Personally, I think it's educational (for me, I assume for others too) to see just how warped it gets at the extremes of the political spectrum, and to see that there are real people at these extremes.
 
I think the discussion about allowing speech with which one absolutely disagrees is an important one to have, especially at this moment in time when the calls for silencing dissent are coming from otherwise liberal voices. Unfortunately that conversation was somewhat torpedoed in this and the 'punch a Nazi' thread in SI&CE by in-depth discussions of a 'philosophy' less evolved and refined than you'd hear expressed by the average college sophomore stoner waiting in the drive-through for his tacos to come up.

Shame to me, as they were threads which went from an interesting (to me) subject to a bit of adolescent edgelording. But if that's what others find interest in engaging with, then such is thread drift I suppose.
 
Mycroft said:
In defense of troll-feeding:

Why not?

The only thing that makes one a troll is that they're further out from center than most. We have posters here who are just as far to the right, and we engage with them all the time.

Personally, I think it's educational (for me, I assume for others too) to see just how warped it gets at the extremes of the political spectrum, and to see that there are real people at these extremes.
Click to expand...

Because the troll is not interested in the topic of the thread or the discussion thereof.

I can't be alone in enjoying a thread's topic and finding it informative but eventually having to say "screw it" and give up reading it because some a-hole barges in and makes the entire thread about his amusement.
 
Joe Random said:
I think the discussion about allowing speech with which one absolutely disagrees is an important one to have
Click to expand...

Then start a thread about that rather than derailing this one by trying to make it about your preferred subject.
 
Last edited:
Polaris said:
Because the troll is not interested in the topic of the thread or the discussion thereof.

I can't be alone in enjoying a thread's topic and finding it informative but eventually having to say "screw it" and give up reading it because some a-hole barges in and makes the entire thread about his amusement.
Click to expand...

It's you bunch of dimwits who aren't interested in the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is the events surrounding Milo at Berkeley, which has nothing to do with what you apparently want to discuss (ie allowing or not allowing speech which one disagrees with). The correct way to handle wanting to discuss something else than the thread's topic is to start a new one.
 
caveman1917 said:
It's you bunch of dimwits who aren't interested in the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is the events surrounding Milo at Berkeley, which has nothing to do with what you apparently want to discuss (ie allowing or not allowing speech which one disagrees with). The correct way to handle wanting to discuss something else than the thread's topic is to start a new one.
Click to expand...

Well us dimwits know that the actual topic of the thread is in fact "allowing or not allowing speech which one disagrees with."

wow.
 
caveman1917 said:
Then start a thread about that rather than derailing this one by trying to make it about your preferred subject.
Click to expand...
Or how about if you start a thread on your alternative views of property rights and discuss freedom of speech here?

Personally, I want to listen Milo Yiannnopoulos precisely because I disagree with him on many issues. I hope to learn not only his opinions, but his perspective and how he arrives at his opinions. Why? Because I'm open to the possibility that he's right and, and also because I need to understand him to know how and why he's wrong.

Basically the same reasons I pay attention to you.

My experience is often that when I'm told what someone's opinion is, it's often different from their actual opinions either because they're trying to exaggerate it to make it more villainous, or to sanitize it to make it more acceptable
 
Joe Random said:
:dl:
Click to expand...

Present your evidence that the protesters shut down Milo's event because they disagreed with him[*]. Upon failing to do so, feel free to admit that you are trying to derail the thread by trying to make it about your pet topic of "allowing or preventing speech one disagrees with". The truth of course is quite obviously simple, preventing speech one disagrees with is all you are able to argue against, hence why you try to make it about that - even though all evidence contradicts that this was the basis for shutting down Milo's event. It is of course always quite telling that when someone points this out by referencing publications of such groups of protesters, or defending their position, that immediately claims come up of "trolling" or "derailing". Right-wing snowflakes really need their safe spaces, where they can let their own imagination go wild and without it being contradicted, don't they?

* and feel free to explain, if you want to uphold your claim, why they don't shut down other speech they disagree with - such as, say, people claiming the Earth is flat.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Or how about if you start a thread on your alternative views of property rights and discuss freedom of speech here?
Click to expand...

Because this thread is about the actions of a specific group of protesters. Just because some posters here want to assign intentions to these protesters that only exist in their own imagination ("they are for shutting down speech they disagree with") does not change that.
 
caveman1917 said:
Present your evidence that the protesters shut down Milo's event because they disagreed with him[*]. Upon failing to do so, feel free to admit that you are trying to derail the thread by trying to make it about your pet topic of "allowing or preventing speech one disagrees with". The truth of course is quite obviously simple, preventing speech one disagrees with is all you are able to argue against, hence why you try to make it about that - even though all evidence contradicts that this was the basis for shutting down Milo's event. It is of course always quite telling that when someone points this out by referencing publications of such groups of protesters, or defending their position, that immediately claims come up of "trolling" or "derailing". Right-wing snowflakes really need their safe spaces, where they can let their own imagination go wild and without it being contradicted, don't they?

* and feel free to explain, if you want to uphold your claim, why they don't shut down other speech they disagree with - such as, say, people claiming the Earth is flat.
Click to expand...

I'll bite for this one, mostly because I'm curious where you are going with such an odd challenge:

Fascist ideals are threatening to the way of life and rights of others. Flat-earth philosophy is harmless quackery. The issue pretty obviously is not about disagreement.
 
MostlyDead said:
I'll bite for this one, mostly because I'm curious where you are going with such an odd challenge:

Fascist ideals are threatening to the way of life and rights of others. Flat-earth philosophy is harmless quackery. The issue pretty obviously is not about disagreement.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly my point.
 
caveman1917 said:
Present your evidence that the protesters shut down Milo's event because they disagreed with him[*]. Upon failing to do so, feel free to admit that you are trying to derail the thread by trying to make it about your pet topic of "allowing or preventing speech one disagrees with". The truth of course is quite obviously simple, preventing speech one disagrees with is all you are able to argue against, hence why you try to make it about that - even though all evidence contradicts that this was the basis for shutting down Milo's event. It is of course always quite telling that when someone points this out by referencing publications of such groups of protesters, or defending their position, that immediately claims come up of "trolling" or "derailing". Right-wing snowflakes really need their safe spaces, where they can let their own imagination go wild and without it being contradicted, don't they?

* and feel free to explain, if you want to uphold your claim, why they don't shut down other speech they disagree with - such as, say, people claiming the Earth is flat.
Click to expand...


That'll totally go places, it will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom